347
Reignites the question of media neglect and hypocrisy maybe.
But anything other than aggrandizing the pants-shitting kleptocrat is communism, and as we all know communism is the devil. Do you support Satan or Freedom™️?
Freedom has only gotten me into a capitalism dystopian hellhole where the rich control everything.
So Satan it is.
Trick question, Satan is freedom, can't tell me what fruit not to eat!
Right? Biden says the smallest thing slightly off and people clutch pearls. Trump mouth regurgitates his own slop, and he’s never been particularly clear in what he talks about. He’s a rambling racist old fool. Period. There isn’t anything that anyone can say to redeem to me anything about this man.
Nah, age was only a problem for Biden.
Rules for thee, not for me
JFC NY Times, you're just noticing his decline now?. It's been self-evident for years.
Even NY Times is starting to see the writing on the wall, and is starting to hedge.
The first chance they get republicans will invoke 25th amendment to remove mentally unfit Trump and install JD as their president. Billionaires are bankrolling JD for this exact reason. Trump is literally a stepping stone for the oligarchs to get past this inconvenient thing called election
They've had the opportunity to use the 25th before and not done so
I think, after watching the VP debate, it seems pretty clear, for whatever reason, that Vance is running for president. Whether it's age, stepping down, 25thA, or whatever, I get a very strong sense that Vance expects to be taking over the oval office sooner rather than later. Looking at how they're organized, who is bankrolling him, and how Vance is positioning himself, I do think it's possible there is a plan somewhere to install him as acting president.
This was always the danger of defending Biden's age, and why I never got the big push to do so.
Running shitty candidates because trump is even shittier just lowers the bar further.
Kamala's not great, but she's slightly under retirement age and isn't openly advocating for genocide, so compared to them she looks great, but pretending she's perfect is just keeping the bar lower than it needs to be
It shouldn't be a big deal to say a candidate is good enough to vote for, but isn't everything you want.
She's a much better candidate than Biden, and Biden was a much better candidate than trump or Hillary Clinton. It's been eight years, or closer to ten if you include the campaign season for the 2016 election. People are rightfully excited about Harris. You're absolutely right that we can do better, but this is the most excited I've ever been for a candidate. I was pessimisticly excited for Obama, but was afraid he wouldn't be able to win the general election.
But you're ignoring that she's not better than 2012 Obama, and definitely not better than 2008 Obama.
Like, everyone knows Hillary was a terrible candidate, we all know Biden was a bad one.
But Kamala being a decent candidate doesn't mean we can't be happy about that, or that we can't acknowledge reality about her.
She's not as progressive as the average Dem voter.
And until candidates start matching the Dem voter base, shit feels like trump always have a chance
If the DNC ran a candidate that matched their voter base, it'd be a landslide. Just a lot less money flowing thru the campaign and the DNC. The people running the party have different goals than the people voting for it
This was always the danger of defending Biden’s age, and why I never got the big push to do so
Happily, we now know it was wrong. At the time, there were concerns that only Biden, with his incumbent advantage and the need to win over midwestern voters ( as was the case four years ago, https://www.vox.com/2020/5/26/21264719/joe-biden-election-coalition & https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/3/21155150/electoral-college-2020-bernie-sanders-joe-biden-trump-wisconsin ) would be the only Dem who could beat the GOP's choice. And it's not like we could swap Biden out for someone else and then tag him back in if the new choice did poorly in polling and such.
Electability was such a huge concern in 2020 that we ended up in a competition between two old white men in the 2020 Dem primary.
Again, happy to know that this was wrong, but this is the line of thinking that was occurring back then.
It shouldn’t be a big deal to say a candidate is good enough to vote for, but isn’t everything you want.
Agreed, but also recall how greatly gerrymandering has affected this election. Of course you can't directly gerrymander the presidential election, but the gerrymandering of Congressional seats and State legislature seats, governorships, etc has had a trickle-up effect, essentially. (E.g. laws passed in the name of preventing voter fraud that make it harder to vote and reduce turnout, increasing the odds that a State will swing for the GOP in the presidential election, as per https://www.npr.org/2020/11/08/932880774/how-gerrymandering-efforts-fit-into-2020-presidential-election )
. Proportionately, he uses 13 percent more all-or-nothing terms like “always” and “never” than he did eight years ago, which some experts consider a sign of advancing age.
If you ask me this is a sign of worsening mental health as much as it is just getting older.
Dude’s head has been completely fucked for years now.
Just look at interviews from the 2000s.he was a completely different person. He definitely has fairly advanced dementia.
was the question of age ever "extinguished"? how could it have been reignited?
They stopped questioning age when Biden stepped down. Now it's taken them almost 3 months to realize the other candidate also has age and dementia issues.
my experience has been seeing one of these articles/posts about every week since kamala took over. and kamala harris has been drilling this point in her campaigning. but after looking into things a bit more, i think it's probably just because i've been too online and my perspective doesn't seem to be the most common one. i think what you said is probably closer to the public opinion/perspective on this.
so i suppose the use of "reignites" is justified here.
New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for New York Times:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/06/us/politics/trump-speeches-age-cognitive-decline.html?unlocked_article_code=1.QE4.v0VX.ylSaoQk_7zWe&smid=url-share
I hope there is an October surprise of leaked health documents and articles. (Those darn hackers again!) Unless he never sees any real doctors, the ugly truth is out there somewhere. It might remind enough people that they shouldn't actually check that box for the confused, terminally angry, obese, 80 year old madman.
The only people that care are non Trump supporters. His supporters are all for crazy senile Trump.
In the real world, anyone over 65 would be forced to retire from their job, but American politics seems to love the old and crazy since they're allowed to hang around.
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
347 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19077 readers
2954 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS