not sure if this is serious or not... this is why i'm pissed about everyone calling biden to step down. everything is a pie in the sky candidate that doesnt even want to fucking run. Bernie's not running, too fucking old, and he's already been tagged with "communist". how about someone who can fucking run right now and can fucking win.Anyone other than Jon Stewart or even Bernie Sanders is a missed opportunity. That said, straight white Christian man if the Democrats are serious.
You're already calling Kamala's potential run as a stinky loss. She hasn't even started to campaign yet! All because you be mad your candidate is going out, but for very very good reasons. That's a cunty statement, oh and culty, so expect one back. You want to say something that fucking insanely stupid and vapid, you earned snarky.
You're so wrapped up in the Biden cultism of your head you can't see out of your fucking ass. It's like Pelosi, Obama, Jeffries, Schumer and so many other loyal Democrats who are anywhere from good at their job to some of the best at their job ever, are all fucking apparently stupid for pushing for Biden to get out, because you love Biden and can't see the reality in front of you. That shouldn't be our problem anymore.
You literally made the worst call on Biden and still are, and you're going to shit on a candidate with potential such as Kamala like that? It's insulting to intelligence at this point, and your political instincts have already shown to be absolutely moronic.
Which would be forgivable, but you keep doubling down tripling down and then shitting on our best hope with absolutely no standing or evidence to do so.
There's a difference between forming coherent thoughts and verbalizing them. Joe has them, but can't always express them in words. It's true for a lot of people.Having a candidate that can actually campaign vs. one that can't given you a lot more upside just out of the gate. How do you honestly try to convince someone to go out and vote for someone that can't form coherent thoughts? (Although in this case neither can, but Trump is incoherent with much more energy)
You've literally never listened to and understood a word that I've said. From the beginning. Everything is reaction and extreme emotion.
Seek help
So what were you referring to when you spoke of an association with a stinky loss in a conversation about two Democrats confirming they are not seeking a VP nod under Kamala.
That's all I need to know and then I'll apologize
But I still see you wrote they didn't want to be associated with a stinky loss. That's it. In other words a losing candidacy this year, assuming Kamala is the nominee, because we were talking about her potential ticket. Just explain to me how I'm misreading those words and I'll apologize.First, you're misrepresenting what I posted. And not that I think you'll listen anyway but ...
It was a reference to them being the next set of front runners and not wanting to throw their hat into a situation that will be complete and utter chaos with a large chance of losing and effectively ending their political careers. It's not that hard to understand.
And again, for like the 10th time, I have no allegiance to Biden. I think I said earlier that I'd vote for Trump's filled up diaper over Trump. But you see what you want to see.
Best of luck in all your future endeavors.
I'll give you that, but for a presidential candidate it's a different without distinction. He could communicate just fine in 2020, but not at all in the last month. This isn't his lifelong studder, or one bad night.There's a difference between forming coherent thoughts and verbalizing them. Joe has them, but can't always express them in words. It's true for a lot of people.
not sure if this is serious or not... this is why i'm pissed about everyone calling biden to step down. everything is a pie in the sky candidate that doesnt even want to fucking run. Bernie's not running, too fucking old, and he's already been tagged with "communist". how about someone who can fucking run right now and can fucking win.
I don't know why people keep suggesting names of people that have very clearly expressed they never want to be president.Still think Michelle Obama is the best choice. She certainly makes Republicunts a bit nervous.
But I still see you wrote they didn't want to be associated with a stinky loss. That's it. In other words a losing candidacy this year, assuming Kamala is the nominee, because we were talking about her potential ticket. Just explain to me how I'm misreading those words and I'll apologize.
Also I never said that I don't think you will vote for whoever the nominee is this fall. So don't put words in my mouth.
"the stink of" ... noun, figure of speech see also: stain, brand
"stinky loss" adjective, implies something negative
Also, if you admit that I'd vote for anyone on the D ticket .. how is that every response is somehow framed as being in a Biden cult?
Never mind. I'm off to teach my dog calculus while he licks his butt. More productive ...
I wouldn't characterize the Biden "stink". Save that for corruption. Biden is just too old which isn't tied to Harris.Still haven't heard one good explanation of how Harris shakes the stink of Biden and rallies Midwest rust belt indies.
Biden ran on "not Trump." Now Kamala is running as "not Biden?"
they don't want the "stink of being associated with this loss." aka a loss this November with Kamala as the nominee, since that was the subject. I mean you can try to spin it, but then you'd be in the 'No Spin Zone' show.
Calling the people in complete denial of the insanely undeniable proof about Biden's capacity now that he is still doing well and that's it, and making up things about those trying to have him step down - well, it's cult- like - literally just about this weird inability to see reality due to this strange ties to this one guy Biden, this loyalty, who is clearly failing badly and not competent. It has nothing to do with your future vote in November.
Absolutely not implying you are in the same type of cult as MAGA. MAGA is in a cult to do pure evil. You guys, you want to do good, you're just in a cult about the Biden thing only.
In fact, I hope you look forward to casting your vote for Kamala this November on the winning presidential ticket.
The only policy centrist by modern American political standards is handouts to our national offense contractors and bank bailouts.I said she shouldn't talk about progressive policy. She can talk about centrist policies all she wants.
She was spitting into the wind at this point.Grandpa had his campaign chief on Morning Joe this morning being very clear that he's not going to drop out of the race.
Obviously it's more complicated than that. Exactly 4 years ago, Joe Biden was about +9 in the national polling average. If that was still the case today, we wouldn't be talking about his cognitive decline. (Granted part of the reason he is -2 is the age issue itself.)I'll give you that, but for a presidential candidate it's a different without distinction. He could communicate just fine in 2020, but not at all in the last month. This isn't his lifelong studder, or one bad night.
If you can't do an interview, you shouldn't be a candidate.
I think I'd already capitulated to a Kamala Harris candidacy about 2 weeks ago (when it was not yet inevitable), but one thing people are kind of glossing over is that Harris is no slam dunk plan B. For one, she just hasn't been a popular politician in the past and it's anyone's guess if that's fundamentally changed.* And to your point, Harris is very much an extension of the Biden administration and the Democratic platform. Although she solves the vexing "Biden is too old" issue, she doesn't change anything about the top 2 issues that voters are unhappy about: economy and migrants at the southern border. All paths are risky because this conversation should have been dealt with 10 months ago.Yes, because a loss in Nov. is entirely possible. I'd argue, probable as things currently stand. And the potential candidates you're talking about are political/animal control freaks that probably aren't real keen on hitching their wagon to a situation that is not only not planned out, but everyone has differing opinions on which way it should go.
And I don't see anyone denying his capacity. A lot of people just don't think it matters as much as some others. The rest of that screed is your own ... take on the subject. The cakes are largely baked. Like we've been saying all along.
You could replace "Biden" with almost anyone (and whatever negative situation they have) right now, and I'd probably feel the same way about changing course. I have no ties or any real attachment to him or any particular part of him at all. So, not a cult. It's simply about the risk aversion to jumping into a complete unknown where no one knows what the process or plan is, and gamble away. I judge that risk as higher than the situation we already know.
"You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had'Obviously it's more complicated than that. Exactly 4 years ago, Joe Biden was about +9 in the national polling average. If that was still the case today, we wouldn't be talking about his cognitive decline. (Granted part of the reason he is -2 is the age issue itself.)
I think I'd already capitulated to a Kamala Harris candidacy about 2 weeks ago (when it was not yet inevitable), but one thing people are kind of glossing over is that Harris is no slam dunk plan B. For one, she just hasn't been a popular politician in the past and it's anyone's guess if that's fundamentally changed.* And to your point, Harris is very much an extension of the Biden administration and the Democratic platform. Although she solves the vexing "Biden is too old" issue, she doesn't change anything about the top 2 issues that voters are unhappy about: economy and migrants at the southern border. All paths are risky because this conversation should have been dealt with 10 months ago.
* For the swath of swing state voters that will decide the election. Harris' net favorability ratings have never been good at the national level. Even 2 months ago, I thought elevating Harris to the top of the ticket was a terrible idea but that was well before the debate disaster.