Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Joe Biden's time is up

It's so completely irresponsible for him to put himself up for re-election. As much as I hate Trump I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Biden either. Why doesn't he just step aside for his VP. The optics of shit like this will be played by the Trump campaign over and over and we're gonna end up with him back in the white house. Leaving aside his obvious physical frailty he's not exactly been the most inspiring President. Just go, Joe. Sit on a beach somewhere. You were a good VP and a mediocre POTUS, leave it at that.
 
It's so completely irresponsible for him to put himself up for re-election. As much as I hate Trump I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Biden either. Why doesn't he just step aside for his VP. The optics of shit like this will be played by the Trump campaign over and over and we're gonna end up with him back in the white house. Leaving aside his obvious physical frailty he's not exactly been the most inspiring President. Just go, Joe. Sit on a beach somewhere. You were a good VP and a mediocre POTUS, leave it at that.

Because his VP is unlikely to win against Trump.
 
Biden definitely is past it, as is Trump. He's got the energy of a man in his 80s, which is nowhere near enough to be taking on such a highly-pressured environment in a fast-moving period of social change. It manifests, again as with Trump, in moments of confusion or tiredness which then get amplified to fit the agendas of the various outlets. But the idea he's completely senile or incapable is a rightist propaganda line, a blunt-force projection in the same way as the leftist line that he's completely up to the task of running in 2024 is overly sunny. He's made dozens of perfectly cogent speeches in the last while, and (again, for a man in his 80s) is usually on top of his brief when questioned by journalists.

Where people like Phil fuck up is in picking one side's line and running with it to the point of losing their ability to apply good sense.
 
Probably, though either of then would be slaughtered by Trump. It's looking like he can only be stopped by a nasty accident, I hope Melania has got the life insurance sorted.

I'm sure she has that sorted, along with a good supply of cash in an offshore account and a bank box with enough pawnable jewelry to keep her for life, even with her expensive tastes. I've accused Melania of many things, but dumb isn't one of them. Mercenary, materialistic, and self-indulgent yes, dumb no.
 
Because his VP is unlikely to win against Trump.

This fact - assuming correct, and I believe it’s generally accepted (?) - is indicative to me of just how dysfunctional the US is. The idea that more than 50% of the population would prefer Trump to, well, anyone really, is just beyond the bounds of my comprehension.

Are there any rational reasons to be down on Kamala Harris?
 
The most conspiracy-like aspect of all this does seem to be the Democrats' determination to put the worst possible (well, all right, less than optimal) candidates up against Trump every time, even when it's obvious they're drags on the vote. Has the DNC been got to?
 
Kamala Harris was polling at below 4% when she dropped out of the Democratic primaries toward the end of 2019, I don't see what advantage there would be for the Democrats in having Biden resign on medical grounds or whatever and hand power to her instead of declaring that he won't seek re-election next year.
 
This fact - assuming correct, and I believe it’s generally accepted (?) - is indicative to me of just how dysfunctional the US is. The idea that more than 50% of the population would prefer Trump to, well, anyone really, is just beyond the bounds of my comprehension.

Are there any rational reasons to be down on Kamala Harris?

This is a fairly balanced profile. She was fairly heavy handed in support of the LAPD from recollection in her time as DA. And is in favour of the death penalty. But it's an impressive CV regardless.

The depressing thing is that the reason she'd probably lose to Trump is that she's a black female.

 
Kamala Harris was polling at below 4% when she dropped out of the Democratic primaries toward the end of 2019, I don't see what advantage there would be for the Democrats in having Biden resign on medical grounds or whatever and hand power to her instead of declaring that he won't seek re-election next year.
Better for her electoral chances to give her a bit of time as president before the election? She might get the chance to look stateswomanlike for a bit?
 
Are there any rational reasons to be down on Kamala Harris?

The main reason she's probably not electable is the fact that she's a female. So, no not rational. One thing that comes back to haunt her with male voters, is her past relationship with a male politician. She gets accused of sleeping her way to the top. It's ridiculous. Everyone has relationships in their past. She surpassed him long ago.

But there's male politicians who can away with things that would sink a woman. There's plenty of male politicians who skate on their wife's fortune, for example. Then, there's guys like Trump who are not only sluts, but adulterous sluts.
 
"The Democratic Party politician, who tried to find common ground with Republicans over three decades in the Senate, died despite planning to retire at the end of her term."

This implies that planning to retire at the end of your term usually protects you from dying.

 
Biden definitely is past it, as is Trump. He's got the energy of a man in his 80s, which is nowhere near enough to be taking on such a highly-pressured environment in a fast-moving period of social change. It manifests, again as with Trump, in moments of confusion or tiredness which then get amplified to fit the agendas of the various outlets. But the idea he's completely senile or incapable is a rightist propaganda line, a blunt-force projection in the same way as the leftist line that he's completely up to the task of running in 2024 is overly sunny. He's made dozens of perfectly cogent speeches in the last while, and (again, for a man in his 80s) is usually on top of his brief when questioned by journalists.

Where people like Phil fuck up is in picking one side's line and running with it to the point of losing their ability to apply good sense.
Reagan had alzhimers through his second term . FDR didn't have to leave the Presidential train ...he would fallen down the step of Airforce 1 a lot more than Biden does. Trump, ain't exactly honest about his health either.

Article 2 stuff hardly seems like it should be the headline campaign issue
 
I don't send anyone money, but I do follow independent journalism. I also read the state media of as many countries as possible. It's important to access a wide range of sources, because the mainstream media in the Anglosphere is riddled with spooks and devoted to propaganda afaics.
but not the mail :facepalm:
 
Reagan had alzhimers through his second term . FDR didn't have to leave the Presidential train ...he would fallen down the step of Airforce 1 a lot more than Biden does. Trump, ain't exactly honest about his health either.

Article 2 stuff hardly seems like it should be the headline campaign issue
I mean ultimately the response to this stuff is that administrations can run quite happily without a figurehead, so whether Biden (or even Trump) is with it is a bit of a sideshow. As Dems do love to point out, Trump failed to substantially change the vast majority of policymaking while actually in office, despite his constant hype about doing so, and was consistently stymied in carrying out his more bizarre ideas by the very administration he'd appointed. Generally Biden, even if he was the very picture of virile young manhood, would still be spending most of his time doing the main job of the Presidency, which is PR and flak management, while most of the gigantic task of managing 330 million people would fall to large, complex bodies of experts, vaguely guided by the political winds.
 
Last edited:
If the Presidental election were purely about which doddery old man to give decent free health care to...

They both could probably afford decent private healthcare insurance
 
I mean ultimately the response to this stuff is that administrations can run quite happily without a figurehead, so whether Biden (or even Trump) is with it is a bit of a sideshow. As Dems do love to point out, Trump failed to substantially change the vast majority of policymaking while actually in office, despite his constant hype about doing so, and was consistently stymied in carrying out his more bizarre ideas by the very administration he'd appointed. Generally Biden, even if he was the very picture of virile young manhood, would still be spending most of his time doing the main job of the Presidency, which is PR and flak management, while most of the gigantic task of managing 330 million people would fall to large, complex bodies of experts, vaguely guided by the political winds.

My main point of contention with Biden is that his administration has mostly left the policies in place that Trump did manage to change.
 
Back
Top Bottom