I don't prefer that. I prefer we have two candidates who are America First (no Trump doesn't qualify, he's Trump first)
Fact checking only one candidate is not healthy for America
- Thread starter Hawkeye Swarm
- Start date
Perfect response, how is this thread 5 pages long?
Because some are dedicated to the lie....
The problem with republicans is they don't care when a republican politician is lying. If most republicans weren't liars, they wouldn't have anything to say.
Pot meet kettle. The only difference between the two is only one gets fact checked (especially in real time)
yawn, I'd like to think you can add more to the conversation, but it just hasn't materialized to this point.
Why? You are in full defense mode protecting a candidate you claim you don't prefer. (Btw, you are the one who added bukkake to the conversation.)
No - there's a huge difference. The fact you think they lie equally is disturbing. It's like one guy is petting a goat and the other guy is f'ing the goat. You say they are the same cause they are both touching the goat.
So Joe is incapable of running for a second term but totally capable of finishing this term?
I have questions.
I don't think lies have a degree of difference. A lie is a lie.
Do you feel that way about everyone that chooses to retire?
No. Not everyone is the Commander in Chief. I think that person deserves more scrutiny.
Maybe, but the Commander in Chief probably has more advisors and assistants than any other person looking to retire. I'm very confident that Joe can with the help of his staff can finish out his term successfully.
There are some decisions that only the CIC can make. If he's cognitively impaired that's a problem. Day to day operations his staff can do that....national emergency is a different matter.
Alright then go with that. 33 vs 1. Does quantity matter?
Even in a national emergency he would have advisors. He may be the one to make the final decision, but he won't be making the choice without consulting others.
If he's unfit to make the choice it doesn't matter how many advisors he has...we didn't elect his advisors to make the decision, we elected him.
What is there to add? You're whining about Trump being a victim.
6 Mos or 4 more years? Yes we know you have come off as clueless for quite some time.
I don't think he's unfit, just old. He is probably the one of the most knowledgeable Presidents we have ever had in regard to foreign policy.
This. Bins act is pathetic at this point.
His debate performance among other indicators call the 6 mos into question.
He was asked to step aside because he was losing in the polls to Trump and was incapable of prosecuting the case against Trump. If he can't do that why should I think he's capable of still being President?
God you are dense. One length of time is 4 years, the other 2 months. Use your brain for once!
Well, guess they are feeling comfortable that she will win. If they thought he was winning, they might have feared his revenge tour.
Yes.
Back to the levels that smooth out our deficits. They are 2% or more below the long-time running average (contributing massively to deficits). That needs to be 2%+ over the running average to bring things back into balance.
#HowMathWorks
Both can be true.
Campaigning while running the country requires substantially more "bandwidth".
You may be dumb for not knowing how we got here. Biden took massive measures to pull us out of a financial crisis and if you'd educate yourself instead of becoming increasingly stupid, you'd know this. It was a world-wide crisis that the U.S. experienced the shortest window.
Of course, it caused inflation. The alternative was recession and possible depression. You are either simply partisan or are truly ignorant.
Very simple, if you don't want your candidate factchecked 30 times , don't put a candidate that lies in EVERY sentence.
Most economists at the time did not believe a "soft landing" was possible and that we were heading into a clear recession.
Biden and his policies enabled the soft landing, and have likewise resulted in substantial investment into US manufacturing.
Pretty much ZERO Republicans supported ANY of those policies.
A tyrant, metaphorically and in reality, in a decision role is a recipe for disaster.
It's not unreasonable now to question the Orange one's mental acuity or hyperbole to question his intentions or reasoning. He is a wild man making bizarre threats of retribution against political opponents, using DoJ and whatever. Still support among his followers remains.
His infatuation with world dictatorial leaders is another bizarre character indicator. This is one strange dude.
My point. I extrapolated it to a world-wide situation. The Rs couldn't work with the Democrats, just like they can't work out a budget deal. Or immigration legislation.
They have to lose to win which them Republicans.
If the Rs win both houses in November, there will be a clamor to replace the ACA. This will be a circus worth watching. Ain't enough popcorn on earth for people to watch these incompetent pumpkins craft a complicated legislation.
Last edited:
I'm telling you all, this is the difference with MAGA. Everything is black and white. It explains how they stomach Trump, if all bad things are equally bad then it stands to reason you might vote on policy.
Trump isn't in office. The subject is the current president and if he's up to the job.
Last edited:
Obviously you don't or you wouldn't support Trump who cares nothing about the U.S.A. or its citizens.
I don't support Trump. But I believe Bernie Sanders when he says Kamala hasn't left her socialist marxist, progressive ideas behind, she's just saying what she needs to win.
