Trump's Verbal Slips Could Weaken His Attacks on Biden's Age - The New York Times
By: Michael C. Bender and Michael Gold (nytimes)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Donald Trump, 77, has relentlessly attacked President Biden, 80, as too old for office. But the former president himself has had a series of gaffes that go beyond his usual freewheeling style.
One of Donald J. Trump's new comedic bits at his rallies features him impersonating the current commander in chief with an over-the-top caricature mocking President Biden's age.
With droopy eyelids and mouth agape, Mr. Trump stammers and mumbles. He squints. His arms flap. He shuffles his feet and wanders laggardly across the stage. A burst of laughter and applause erupts from the crowd as he feigns confusion by turning and pointing to invisible supporters, as if he does not realize his back is to them.
But his recent campaign events have also featured less deliberate stumbles. Mr. Trump has had a string of unforced gaffes, garble and general disjointedness that go beyond his usual discursive nature, and that his Republican rivals are pointing to as signs of his declining performance.
On Sunday in Sioux City, Iowa, Mr. Trump wrongfully thanked supporters of Sioux Falls, a South Dakota town about 75 miles away, correcting himself only after being pulled aside onstage and informed of the error.
It was strikingly similar to a fictional scene that Mr. Trump acted out earlier this month, pretending to be Mr. Biden mistaking Iowa for Idaho and needing an aide to straighten him out.
In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has also told supporters not to vote, and claimed to have defeated President Barack Obama in an election. He has praised the collective intellect of an Iranian-backed militant group that has long been an enemy of both Israel and the United States, and repeatedly mispronounced the name of the armed group that rules Gaza.
"This is a different Donald Trump than 2015 and '16 — lost the zip on his fastball," Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida told reporters last week while campaigning in New Hampshire.
"In 2016, he was freewheeling, he's out there barnstorming the country," Mr. DeSantis added. "Now, it's just a different guy. And it's sad to see."
It is unclear if Mr. Trump's recent slips are connected to his age. He has long relied on an unorthodox speaking style that has served as one of his chief political assets, establishing him, improbably, among the most effective communicators in American politics.
But as the 2024 race for the White House heats up, Mr. Trump's increased verbal blunders threaten to undermine one of Republicans' most potent avenues of attack, and the entire point of his onstage pantomime: the argument that Mr. Biden is too old to be president.
Mr. Biden, a grandfather of seven, is 80. Mr. Trump, who has 10 grandchildren, is 77.
Even though only a few years separate the two men in their golden years, voters view their vigor differently. Recent polls have found that roughly two out of three voters say Mr. Biden is too old to serve another four-year term, while only about half say the same about Mr. Trump.
If that gap starts to narrow, it's Mr. Trump who has far more to lose in a general-election matchup.
ImageMr. Trump and President Biden are the front-runners for each party's nomination, setting up the likelihood of a 2020 rematch. Credit...Michelle Gustafson for The New York Times
According to a previously unreported finding in an August survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 43 percent of U.S. voters said both men were "too old to effectively serve another four-year term as president." Among those voters, 61 percent said they planned to vote for Mr. Biden, compared with 13 percent who said the same about Mr. Trump.
Last week, similar findings emerged in a Franklin & Marshall College poll of registered voters in Pennsylvania, one of the most closely watched 2024 battlegrounds.
According to the poll, 43 percent of Pennsylvanians said both men were "too old to serve another term." An analysis of that data for The New York Times showed that Mr. Biden led Mr. Trump among those voters by 66 percent to 11 percent. Among all voters in the state, the two men were in a statistical tie.
Berwood Yost, the director of the Franklin & Marshall poll, said that Mr. Biden's wide lead among voters who were worried about both candidates' ages could be explained partly by the fact that Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to identify age as a problem for their party's leader.
"The age issue is one that if Trump gets tarred with the same brush as Biden, it really hurts him," Mr. Yost said.
Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, noted that the former president maintained a commanding lead in Republican primary polls and that in the general election, several recent polls had shown Mr. Trump with slight leads over Mr. Biden.
"None of these false narratives has changed the dynamics of the race at all — President Trump still dominates, because people know he's the strongest candidate," Mr. Cheung said. "The contrast is that Biden is falling onstage, mumbling his way through a speech, being confused on where to walk, and tripping on the steps of Air Force One. There's no correcting that, and that will be seared into voter's minds."
Mr. Trump's rhetorical skills have long relied on a mix of brute force and a seemingly preternatural instinct for the imprecise. That beguiling combination — honed from a lifetime of real estate negotiations, New York tabloid backbiting and prime-time reality TV stardom — often means that voters hear what they want to hear from him.
ImageMr. Trump's speaking style has often meant that his supporters, or voters who are open to backing him, hear what they want to hear from him. Credit...Jordan Gale for The New York Times
Trump supporters leave his speeches energized. Undecided voters who are open to his message can find what they're looking for in his pitch. Opponents are riled, and when they furiously accuse him of something they heard but that he didn't quite precisely say, Mr. Trump turns the criticism into a data point that he's unfairly persecuted — and the entire cycle begins anew.
But Mr. Trump's latest missteps aren't easily classified as calculated vagueness.
During a Sept. 15 speech in Washington, a moment after declaring Mr. Biden "cognitively impaired, in no condition to lead," the former president warned that America was on the verge of World War II, which ended in 1945.
In the same speech, he boasted about presidential polls showing him leading Mr. Obama, who is not, in fact, running for an illegal third term in office. He erroneously referred to Mr. Obama again during an anecdote about winning the 2016 presidential race.
"We did it with Obama," Mr. Trump said. "We won an election that everybody said couldn't be won, we beat …" He paused for a beat as he seemed to realize his mistake. "Hillary Clinton."
At a Florida rally on Oct. 11, days after a brutal terrorist attack that killed hundreds of Israelis, Mr. Trump criticized the country for being unprepared, lashing out at its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Trump appears to have soured on Mr. Netanyahu, once a close ally, after the Israeli leader congratulated Mr. Biden for winning the 2020 election.
In the same speech, Mr. Trump relied on an inaccurate timeline of events in the Middle East to criticize Mr. Biden's handling of foreign affairs and, in the process, drew headlines for praising Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group.
Last week, while speaking to supporters at a rally in New Hampshire, Mr. Trump praised Viktor Orban, the strongman prime minister of Hungary, but referred to him as "the leader of Turkey," a country hundreds of miles away. He quickly corrected himself.
At another point in the same speech, Mr. Trump jumped into a confusing riff that ended with him telling supporters, "You don't have to vote — don't worry about voting," adding, "We've got plenty of votes."
Mr. Cheung, the Trump campaign spokesman, said the former president was "clearly talking about election integrity and making sure only legal votes are counted."
ImageUnder Mr. Trump, the Republican Party has been dealt a series of electoral defeats since 2016. Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
In a speech on Saturday, Mr. Trump sounded as if he were talking about hummus when he mispronounced Hamas (huh-maas), the Islamist group that governs the Gaza Strip and carried out one of the largest attacks on Israel in decades on Oct. 7.
The former president's pronunciation drew the attention of the Biden campaign, which posted the video clip on social media, noting that Mr. Trump sounded "confused."
But even Republican rivals have sensed an opening on the age issue against Mr. Trump, who has maintained an unshakable hold on the party despite a political record that would in years past have compelled conservatives to consider another standard-bearer. Mr. Trump lost control of Congress as president; was voted out of the White House; failed to help deliver a "red wave" of victories in the midterm elections last year; and, this year, drew 91 felony charges over four criminal cases.
Nikki Haley, the 51-year-old former governor of South Carolina, opened her presidential bid this year by calling for candidates 75 or older to pass mental competency tests, a push she has renewed in recent weeks.
On Saturday, Ms. Haley attacked Mr. Trump over his comments about Mr. Netanyahu and Hezbollah, suggesting in a speech to Jewish donors in Las Vegas that the former president did not have the faculties to return to the White House.
"Let me remind you," she added with a small smile. "With all due respect, I don't get confused."
Jazmine Ulloa contributed reporting.
Michael C. Bender is a political correspondent and the author of "Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost."More about Michael C. Bender
Michael Gold is a political correspondent for The Times covering the campaigns of Donald J. Trump and other candidates in the 2024 presidential elections.More about Michael Gold
- Share full article
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
244 visitors
How dare people say Trump is not "presidential" ! ?
We’ll know trump is in trouble when his supporters start blaming his problems on a stutter.
I dont give a damn about his supporters. We have to wake up the other 70% of voters.
They are waking up and deciding that Joe must go.
Haley's star is rising.
Other than by a few points in Iowa and shifting Ramaswamy down to 4th overall? You might want to wait for several more hapless hopefuls to drop out before banging on her drum.
At least Biden has a more than capable VP to take over just in case some MAGA fascist decides against the democratic process.
Saw Harris on 60 minutes and she was great! Very smart and articulate.
Capable of what?
One of the maga scum who the former 'president' incited on 1/6 was jailed due to the fact that he was threatening the police officer witness who testified against him. In court, the scum bag resisted arrest and it took over a half a dozen court officers to subdue the scumbag.
Sounds like the former 'president' who has been harassing and intimidating witnesses all along. He also belongs behind bars pending trial.
Capable of being POTUS.
She is eminently qualified.
You should look up her record.
Not true.
Best word salads in the country. She won the "Most Words Used Without Saying Anything" award 3 years straight.
America may disagree.
I'm looking at her polling right now:
Do Americans approve or disapprove of Kamala Harris?
Disapprove 59%
Approve 39%
I watched the first debate. She's a typical politician.
That being said, I think she was the most intelligent person on the stage IMO.
Yes, she does actually speak at a high intellectual level that republicans are incapable of understanding.
And THAT is QUITE the accomplishment, especially considering Donald and Joe are out there! There was stiff competition and she licked it every time!
Is that like dog whistling?
Compared to Joe, that's a true statement.
How about when Melania said to him, allegedly, 'Darling I love you, but that's not presidential . . . '
This is simply another gaslighting special, which attempts to normalize one of Biden’s faults by projecting it onto Trump.
Hilarious!
I will give you one thing, Trump has more energy than Biden.
Unfortunately all his energy propels him to act like a jackass on a near daily basis.
Trump forgets where he's at (or never bothers to learn what town he's in) forgets who he is running against in the election, forgets or doesnt know basic geography, and constantly says stupid things. He's either senile or he is a clown, take your pick.
He's both senile and a clown plus a lying liar and a socio/psychopath.
Yet he is still better than lying sack of shit dementia ridden Joe
Trump isn’t a dimbulb like Biden. He’s just an egomaniac.
Of course so is Biden.
Well at least he has to act like a jackass. Biden is naturally a jackass through and through. Right to the bone.
The word narcissist encompasses that and more.
Trump reminds me of Spinal Tap but without the humor.
Please elaborate on that erroneous statement.
If you mean by "jackass" that Biden is a democrat, I suppose that you finally got something half correct.
The donkey is the democrat standard, standing for intelligence and a wide streak of stubbornness.
You know exactly how I mean that Biden is a jackass and it isn't because he is a Democrat. It is however very appropriate that a jackass is the symbol of the party.
No, your hero is the lying sack of shit dementia ridden turd.
See 2.1.2
Neither Biden nor Trump should be the nominee; both parties continue to screw up.
But the level of screwup in the GOP is an order of magnitude worse than that of the Ds.
Outside of policy differences, Biden's big issue is his age, but Trump is only three years younger.
Trump's issue is that he is a con-man who lives in a delusional reality where he is always the smartest guy in the room and never does anything wrong. He is also a narcissist who demonstrably cares only about himself and will throw anyone and anything (including the CotUS and the nation itself) under the bus if it benefits him. He is the only PotUS in the history of the USA who has attempted to steal a USA presidential election with fraud, lying, coercion, and incitement. He is a proven fraud, sexual abuser, and is under indictment for 91 counts with merit.
But you are going to vote for this miserable human being because he is "better" than Biden.
What must Trump do to get people like you to finally realize that he should never be given access to the powers of the presidency?
Thanks for telling me who I am going to vote for because I haven't made a decision yet and don't plan to for quite some time.
There is no comparing the alleged screw ups of the Dems. as far as I'm concerned to today's election deniers and defenders of the indefensible.
Based on some members of Congress and what is going on in some Dem cities and liberal campuses the Dems are in danger of being known as the party of antisemites. Pretty big screwup and defending the indefensible.
On top of all that I don't believe the former 'president' has ever been told no in his entire life.
Get a sex change operation.
You claim Trump is better than Biden and also claim that you have not decided who you are going to vote for.
Well the choices are limited with the current assumption of Biden and Trump as the nominees.
So, with that assumption, one can vote for Biden, Trump, 3rd party, neither.
Clearly you will not vote for Biden. Clearly you have not decided against voting for Trump.
So I will ask you again:
What must Trump do to get people like you to finally realize that he should never be given access to the powers of the presidency?
Swap spit with Hillary Clinton. That should do it.
Or just declare himself a D. Now that would blow the minds of R loyalists. Imagine the cognitive dissonance.
True.
1. Stop telling me who I will and won't vote for a full year from now. It is embarrassing.
2. You seem to be getting your panties in a bunch trying to insist that comments I make today have something to do with who I will vote for a YEAR from now. They have nothing to do with each other.
3. Biden or Trump may be your assumption but I am making no such assumption. I will vote for the Dem nominee, Rep nominee, someone else on the ballot, or no one.
4. I never said I won't vote for Biden. Alot can happen between now and next year so I will make no declarations about anyone either way, that includes Biden. My hope is neither Biden nor Trump will be the nominee.
5. So let you tell me what I will do since I have been doing it for over 45 years. I will wait until I actually see who is on the ballot and who all the choices are. This will probably be in the fall of 2024, I will look at things like policy, character, honesty, experience, baggage and some other attributes(in this case VP pick). Then I will look at how important each policy they promote is to me. Then I will decide who to vote for. Until I go though my process I will make no declarations who I will or will not consider voting for. It is a total waste of time, especially since we are a year away and I am not assumingly who any candidate will be.
6. As far as "people like me" it is obvious you don't know who people like me are.
I wonder if many folks on the left think about that alot.
Lots of emotional bluster, yet you still have not precluded voting for Trump.
You continue to deflect from my question:
What must Trump do to get people like you to finally realize that he should never be given access to the powers of the presidency
( "people like you" = those who have not precluded voting for Trump )
No Emotion
No Bluster
No deflection
I told you what I will do to determine who to vote for in number 5 and I will make no declarations (or preclusions) before that no matter how much someone badgers me to do so. That is my process and it is what I will do. I assume "people like me" will probably do the same since they are "people like me".
I have a feeling we are not really who you are talking about though. I have a feeling you are talking about ardent Trump supporters. Or maybe not, I really don't care.
Absolutely fair.
In the same way that Venus is an order of magnitude more hospitable for human life than Saturn. They're both so terrible it's not really much of a distinction.
It has much more to do with cognitive limitations than just age.
It all depends on how one defines "better", doesn't it?
A complicating factor here is that Biden has not done himself any favors while in office. There are a large number of Americans who are willing to put up with absolutely anything rather than endure 4 more years of his pandering to angry liberal special interests and eschewing common sense.
Campaign on the platform of providing government-funded gender transition surgeries for illegal aliens paid for by a tax on guns.
As asinine as such a platform sounds, if Biden came out in support of it tomorrow, it wouldn't be the most surprising news of the day.
Hardly. Trump should never hold any public office. He should not even be a consideration.
Comparing a man who is cognitively normal for an 80 year old to a man who is arguably living in a delusion.
Trump should never hold any public office. He should not even be a consideration.
I would not be so concerned with Biden running for a second term if he had a strong, competent V.P.
In contrast, there is nothing that would make voting for Trump even a remotely valid consideration.
Neither should run for office, but Trump is an order of magnitude worse than Biden.
Yes, we can all see that you will not preclude voting for Trump.
As I noted.
And you continue to deflect from my question, as expected.
At this point, it is very likely that people who are not willing to say they wont vote for Trump under any circumstances will vote for him if he is the nominee.
Trump is not fit to hold office, for a thousand reasons. Once you are not fit to hold office, any office, that should be the utter end of consideration for this person. We dont see that from "conservatives" , and have never seen it. Trump was totally, completely unfit for office in 2016 too, so we kind of know what the future holds.
Now that is just making shit up
JR is telepathic.
Yeah Right Down The Center and TiG1 No ardent Trump supporter around these parts!
Yes you will make no declarations. Already known; not the question. You are NOT being asked to state who you will vote for or how you will decide. You are being asked why you will not preclude Trump.
In spite of what we know of him, what he has done, etc. you still have not precluded voting for him. You have clearly expressed that he is still on the table for you. We all see that, and I am not suggesting that you have not made that clear.
Is there any point —anything that Trump can do— that would cause you to determine that he should not be allowed the powers of the presidency?
Clearly, being the only PotUS in USA history to attempt to steal a USA presidential election through fraud, lying, coercion and incitement is not enough for you to write him off as unacceptable. What more must the man do before people like you (i.e. those who have not precluded him) realize he should never be allowed access to the presidency?
Is there anything he could do that would cause you to take him off the table?
Evidence is present that the GOP is not FIT to hold office. They are flipping democracy upside down! Or a surer bet - they simply expose the fact that some conservatives think that this country is here for their majority and wishes!
Apparently, many disagree. Dems hold elected 3712 seats at territorial Houses and above while Repubs hold 4882.
Side effect of TDS.
Democracy isn't in danger here.
Maybe the talking head idiots on CNN and MSNBC will stop spreading lies gullible folks keep falling for.
Spreading fear is the only way they can get people to vote for their bad policies
Being elected is not the same as being fit to hold office. Fitness is measured by actions and activities. Some republicans and conservatives like to take freedoms away from their fellow citizens.
As measured by voters.
Okay, if you say so.
That is just silly. It is measured by partisan democrats.
Amen. Joe is a great example of that.
Okay, I do say so.
Biden is an excellent example of that.
How is it possible that anyone can state that Biden is not fit yet hold that Trump is fit to hold office?
How is it possible that anyone can state that Biden is not fit yet hold that Trump is fit to hold office?
They can only think of one thing at a time.
And exactly what freedoms have you lost under Republicans?
Any at ALL??????????????????
Please tell me you have something more than just generalities without ever giving one specific thing.
That is one more than some
You hold that Biden is not fit for office; do you hold that Trump is not fit for office?
Or... in the real world.... completely.
At this point neither of them should be a consideration for public office.
If he had a strong VP, that person would be running for president.
Infinity squared is an order of magnitude larger than infinity. But the difference is meaningless in practical terms.
You see no real world, practical difference between Trump and Biden? If forced to choose one, would you just flip a coin?
I agree. But that does not make them equally unfit. See above.
Politics is often not logical. It would be far easier for the D party to have a strong V.P. like Walz than to have Walz replace Biden at the top of the ticket.
In the real world, Trump is irresponsible and demonstrably out for himself ... even at the expense of the CotUS and the nation.
Biden is at least attempting to do what he thinks is right for the nation.
There is no comparison. In the real world ... in practical terms.
And Biden is unfit for a dozen. Unfit is unfit, no matter how much Trump terrifies you.
I agree. Yet you're going to vote for Biden, aren't you?
We don't see it from liberals either. You're going to vote for Biden, aren't you?
Apparently it involves either a senile elderly man who will never be able to finish a second term, or an orange elderly man causing liberals to foam at the mouth in full hysteria.
That is how you gently characterize Trump?? That is all you see: an older man who uses tanning spray??
I see two men unfit for the office they seek.
I thought we were talking about the real world. In the real world, I refuse to vote for either of these men. So no, there is no practical difference.
The practical effects are the same. See above.
That would be true if Biden wasn't ancient, feeble, and showing signs of dementia. Nobody would mind at all if he retired. Politics is about giving people what they want, and what everybody wants right now is a younger option.
Obviously.
What a naive crock of shit. What exactly makes you think you understand Biden's motivation? You imagine a 40 year career politician has suddenly sprouted a conscience and is doing "what he thinks is right"?? WTF? What happened to all that "real world" and "practical terms" stuff you wanted to talk about?
There is very little evidence to suggest Biden understands his own motivation and even less evidence to suggest he's actually making any decisions.
I'm not the one trying to compare them.
In the real world... in practical terms... this all boils down to a single, binary decision: am I going to vote for this person? That is the only thing I can control. As I've already discussed, I'm not voting for either of these old bastards, so any differences between them are inconsequential.
I realize it may seem strange, but I don't actually feel the need to revisit all of the reasons I refuse to vote for Trump in every single post that includes a reference to him.
Yeah, I know. But we will likely be faced with choosing one of them. They are not equivalent.
In the real world, if they are the nominees, one will be PotUS. If Trump is likely to win are you saying that you would do nothing to try to stop that? You see no practical difference between Trump and Biden as PotUS? Nothing?
The two are not equivalent.
You thinking the two are equivalent is beyond naive. You are off by an order of magnitude.
Well they are likely to be the nominees so I suggest you start thinking about this and that starts by comparing them.
I hope that I can not vote for either too. But l can see a stark difference between the two and if there is a reasonable chance that Trump could win, I will vote for Biden to nullify a Trump vote.
So instead you summarize all that is Trump as merely "orange man". You think that is even remotely accurate as a summary?
You're not listening. I will not vote for an unfit candidate for president.
I'm curious as to what power you think you or I have to stop our fellow citizens from choosing a president.
Practical... meaning actions that make a material difference in the lives of average Americans.... Not really. They're both inept, they support stupid ideas, they pander to the extremist simpletons in their base, and they spend too much money. No matter who wins, his supporters will claim he's saving us from destruction and his opponents will claim he's bringing it about.
But at the end of the day, the White House has exceedingly little impact on the day-to-day lives of the average American. It's supposed to work that way.
Unfit for office = unfit for office.
The word you're looking for is "cynical".
You're still not listening. I am not voting for an unfit candidate.
As I just explained, I don't feel the need to revisit my reasons every time I post. It's tedious for all parties concerned.
it was easy. want to see me say it again/
When and where I say that. All I ever said is thar he would be better/
This sentence of unadulterated crap gives away your game Jack. No one opposes Trump because he is orange, they laugh at him because he is orange. They also laugh at people who say things like "orange man bad" or "a few mean tweets". Trump is the most unfit for office candidate , or president, in American history. People like you try and equate Trump's behavior and dishonesty, and frankly mental illness (malignant narcissism) with various and numerous other politicians, each of which may have a smattering of Trumps odious traits, when he is the only one who has them all to a degree unseen in other people across the span of decades.
You are more enthusiastic about liberals "foaming at the mouth", to describe your imagination, than you are in ridding our society and culture from the disease Trump has inflicted on us for 8 years (and counting). Clearly , clearly, clearly, ridiculing liberals is far more important to you than getting rid of Trump.
That is not flattering to your political position.
May I suggest you say: "I will not vote for Biden. I will not vote for Trump an order of magnitude more than I will not vote for Biden".
Your record is skipping
He would have to be on my table for me to take him off my table. But your hypotheticals which would most likely keep him off my table are cute.
It is a wild and wonderful world.
If only others felt the same way. I wonder if they believe everyone reads all the same list over and over again every day.
Lame. Obviously I read that since I responded to it. You plan to not vote for either man. That does not change the reality of the situation. You have the option to sit on your thumbs and sing happy songs pretending there are no material differences, but the likely reality is that one of these two old men will be elected and they are NOT equivalent.
What has confused you? I have been wilting about our individual ability to vote. As I noted, the best I can do is nullify a single Trump vote.
We are talking about placing Trump in the most powerful office on the planet. You apparently believe the presidency does not impact the lives of average Americans. Incredible. And beyond that, do you not see how this will further the demise of what was the GOP and solidify the GOP as the party of Trump? A party whose current credibility is crap, where overt lying is now an accepted norm, and dysfunction rules will almost certainly be worse with four more years of Trump. But you see none of this.
A thief and a murderer are both unfit to run a day-care center. They are both unfit but they are clearly NOT equivalent in terms of potential harm.
Naive works well too. Inability to recognize the practical difference between Trump and Biden is beyond naive.
Do you consider Trump to be fit for office?
What frightens you about being clear?
The above suggests that you would NOT consider voting for Trump. This contradicts your prior comments.
Which is it?
I am being very clear, several times. Why are you being so obtuse? Is it intentional or are you really having trouble comprehending what I am saying? It seems you have the same issue with many of the posters here, and they have the same complaints about your being as obtuse as I see.
Which is it?
Neither. I am not considering voting for Trump. I have not ruled him out. I am not considering voting for anyone at the present time. I have not ruled anyone out. No one is on my table and they won't be until they are on the ballot. Why is that so hard to understand?
NO ONE is on my table. I am NOT considering anyone at the present time, nor do I intend to for another 10 or so months. I am not considering voting for anyone, nor am I eliminating anyone since I am not thinking about it at all. Once someone is on the ballot I will consider them on the table. Until then I am not even thinking about it no matter how much that bothers you.
At this point I am not taking you seriously since it is obvious all you want to do is troll me. Go troll someone else.
I don't think that was the desired answer.
Time will tell, though.
Given you have not ruled Trump out, he is "on your table" (at least for the average speaker of English who understands common idioms).
By not ruling Trump out, he is still an option for you. He is a consideration for you. By definition.
Your post is typical of the nonsense seen by Trump supporters. A pathetic game of running from clarity.
You will NOT RULE OUT the only sitting PotUS in our history who tried to steal a presidential election through fraud, lying, coercion and incitement. A malignant narcissist who lies at every opportunity and who has demonstrated that he will throw the CotUS and the nation itself under the bus. An abysmal character with a history of lying and cheating who has been recently found liable for sexual abuse, financial fraud and is facing 91 felony counts.
What more would Trump have to do before you rule him out?
Jr, did you mean to say this about Biden.
Why can't you just accept that he has answered you multiple times now?
Pay attention. He is trying to play word games and I am using his own words.
He has not ruled Trump out.
Now, look at the question I asked. I am asking what it takes for him to rule Trump out.
Have you "ruled Trump out"? If not, what would Trump have to do to pass your threshold and determine that you WILL NOT vote for him?
I find it strange that some expect people to have already made their minds up about who to vote for this far out.
I think some of these same folks were the ones pushing the idea that Comey influenced the election because of what he did in late October with Weiner's laptop, as if millions were persuaded against voting for Hillary!
No, TiG, time for you to pay attention.
Stop pretending people haven't answered you when clearly they have.
Just accept his answer and move along instead of harassing him.
If you didn't understand what he wrote and meant, then reread it.
I found it pretty freaking clear.
And of course you get it wrong.
I am not asking who RDC will vote for. I am asking what else Trump must do before he rules Trump out.
There are a couple people here, conservatives, who say they will never vote for Trump again (the rest admit they might vote for him). I find those declarations extremely dubious. Why? Because these same people always attack/criticize Biden and never attack/criticize Trump. These same people accuse the rest of us of being "obsessed with" Trump. If they aren't for Trump why do they care if someone else pays attention to him? I could go on but I'll leave it at that.
Again you fail to read. The answer is that he has not ruled Trump out. I acknowledged that. It seems impossible that you could not see that.
The question now is: What more would Trump have to do before you rule him out?
Same question to you.
No, it is YOU getting it wrong by pretending your questions weren't answered.
A clear and obvious falsehood.
And WHY on God's green earth would I bother to answer one of your little questions when the evidence is before me that you will simply pretend you weren't answered?
I am not getting involved in that little pathetic game.
My intent was first to get a clear answer. That is always a problem with certain people who hide from clarity.
Once a clear answer was achieved, I asked the question that I was actually interested in: "What more would Trump have to do before you rule him out?"
And of course we will see nothing but deflection, lying, etc. because this question exposes cognitive dissonance.
The pathetic game is refusing to clearly answer a direct question.
When the question is finally answered and acknowledged, you enter with your own pathetic game flat out lying that I have not acknowledged the answer.
The next question is: What more would Trump have to do before you rule him out?
This has NOT been answered. Do the math.
Asked AND answered more than once. Repeated asking again and again when it has been answered is harassing.
See there? It wasn't really so hard to admit that your question was answered, now was it?
Now you are tripping yourself up. Either it was answered as I claimed or it wasn't answered as you previously claimed but have now admitted that it was.
I have ruled him out. The real question is how long before you can accept the answer.
Have you ruled Biden out?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
A wise decision. What’s stopping the majority of the GOP from doing likewise?
Yes. Politics at its core is about personal likes and dislikes.
Have you ruled out Biden?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Wow. I thought it was all about conservatives taking your freedoms.
Again you do not pay attention. I have been crystal clear, repeatedly, for at least a year now, in my voting thought process:
I will NOT vote for Trump under any circumstances.
I will NOT vote for Biden in a Biden v Trump contest unless:
Further, if Haley is the nominee, I will vote for her.
That means I have NOT ruled out Biden per the above qualifications.
So, a simple no would have sufficed, as was made abundantly clear.
That was easy, wasn't it?
You are considering voting for Biden.
on the contrary.
I gave your answers the same exact consideration you give others' answers.
Because it is a game of weasel words. We're being 'messed with' by conservatives who obfuscate on NT all day and all night long. Why? I don't know. I wouldn't bother coming here simply to be insincere. . . unless. . .my salary/wages depended on that! Operatives!
So then you must truly believe some conservatives have robbed you of your freedoms, as you so often claim.
Which freedoms specifically?
Or did the DNC not include that talking point?
the gqp were voted for by their unfit voters - which is how they stay in office - the only way - they don't do shit except spread hate, lies, and dis-mis-information
the unfit gqp were voted for by their unfit voters/enablers/supporters/cultof the former'president'/defendersoftheindefensible
Aha! You hit it. It is not that there has been no answer, it is that it is not the desired answer.
Undoubtably.
I can't understand how "I am NOT considering anyone at the present time, nor do I intend to for another 10 or so months. I am not considering voting for anyone, nor am I eliminating anyone since I am not thinking about it at all" translates into " He is a consideration." or "NO ONE is on my table" translates into "he is "on your table" .
Sometimes I wonder if some people are not just looking for a reason to regurgitate why the think Donald should not be president
Luckily it is not my problem and not up to me to solve for someone else.
Wrong, again.
Go troll someone else
Exactly.
And I bet it didn't take four times for you to understand.
I comprehended your comment easily the very first time I read it!
I should have known better
The pathetic game is refusing to accept an answer given because you don't like it. It is a game you play all too often.
Harassing, trolling, cajoling, bullying would all be good words for some peoples strategy. Oh, I forgot sad and pathetic.
So that means you would not preclude Biden :
Interesting
I didn't know weasels could talk.
Badgering
Your words: 2.1.105 "Go troll someone else."
I hope it works better for you than it did for me.
You (and JustJim and Texan) are totally confused. Read the first part of what you quoted:
See how my statement is of the form: NOT vote for UNLESS? That means that by default I will NOT vote for Biden. See? We start with NOT vote for and then add exceptions.
Understand?
Okay, so you should now see why your questions presume the exact opposite logic of what I wrote.
Given my starting position is that I am NOT voting for Biden, it makes no sense whatsoever to ask if I would NOT vote for him if he murdered someone, was caught selling secrets, raped, convicted of felonies.
Incredible how every little thing must be broken down for a select group of individuals.
You and select, specific others, routinely dodge direct questions. And when challenged you claim you have answered the questions.
Who do you think you are fooling?
What is interesting is the levels that some people stoop to avoid answering direct questions. If you are sound on your positions why dodge and deflect? (Rhetorical)
And yet you are absolutely about to prove me right.
Nevertheless, he is, in fact, orange. And elderly.
It's worth noting that "orange elderly man" is a derisive description under any circumstances. But now two different people have objected to it. It's not enough not to vote for Trump. It's not enough to make fun of Trump. No no. You have to join the mob and match their level of hysteria. It's very similar to the patterns you see when you study religious zealotry.
So you say. Over and over and over. Out of curiosity, were you around for Andrew Jackson's presidency? No? Andrew Johnson's?
So what you really mean to say is that Trump scares you more than any other POTUS in history that you know about. That's fine. Personally, he doesn't scare me. But when you angrily demand that everybody else participate in your little lynch mob, that's hysteria.
So.... you see how I've already stated (repeatedly) that I refuse to vote for Trump. And you see how even that is not enough to slow your hysterical melodrama? No, of course you don't.
So yeah, I will enthusiastically ridicule that bullshit and all who commit to it. Foam at the mouth if you like. You're just proving my point.
An entirely misleading claim.
Two people objected to it being your chosen summary description of Trump. A summary description, if one seeks accuracy, would focus on the factors most descriptive of the subject. Your comment states that you find "orange" and "elderly" to be the factors that best describe Trump in a derisive fashion.
I think most people would offer derisive factors such as: "pathological liar", "traitor", "narcissist", "potential felon", "con-artist", "asshole", "irresponsible", "incompetent", "ego-maniac", "arrogant", "delusional", "low-information", etc. These certainly characterize and distinguish Trump far better than "orange" and "elderly".
LOL. I like how you slipped asshole in there, and that is very descriptive, very well done.
And tig I do share your opinion most of the time, except when it's against President Bidens, just kidding
I am not in the least confused.
Stop that crap.
President Biden, plus I know you're not 'against' President Biden, it's for lack of a better word.
You routinely ask questions and pretend they haven't been answered.
You obviously did not understand it or you would not have responded as you did.
Now you've got it.
Hilariously ironic from someone who has convinced himself a 40 year career politician is "doing what he thinks is best for the country".
Tell me how the life of the average American will be tangibly, measurably different. Tell me how their life is tangibly, measurably better now than it was 4 years ago. Or 8 years ago.
We operate under an electoral college system, and I live in Texas. I could vote for Biden 4 times and it wouldn't make a difference. So you vote however you like, but my conscience will not allow me to endorse a person I believe to be unfit for the position.
Is it the most powerful? Or is that just what Americans like to tell ourselves? Xi Jinping can keep a billion people off of Youtube. Vladimir Putin's enemies disappear. An American president has to deal with the Constitution limiting his powers, as well as keeping his donors happy.
How has Joe Biden made your daily life measurably better? Be specific.
That ship appears to have sailed, and my vote did nothing to slow it.
But you see none of this.
You of all people are in no position to accuse anybody else of "not seeing".
You voted up RDC's utterly confused comment. Do you normally vote up comments with which you disagree?
So assuming you really did agree then you are just as confused as he is.
Given my starting position is that I am NOT voting for Biden, it shows complete confusion for someone to ask if I would NOT vote for Biden if he was a murderer, rapist, etc.
A: I am NOT voting for Biden unless ... (Trump winning, Good V.P.)
B: Well what if Biden was a murderer, would that cause you to NOT vote for him?
A: If I am NOT voting for Biden as a non-murderer I am of course am not voting for Biden if he is a murder.
See? Get it? Total confusion.
Why are you so worried over what I vote up?
I know you are considering Biden.
You told me, remember?
I am not worried, just holding you accountable when you vote up a truly confused or false comment.
Not sure what you think you are accomplishing by repeating this again. Apparently you do not comprehend that it is RDC who is trying to state that "on the table" does not mean "considering". I told you the conditions under which I would vote for Biden so clearly he is on the table and that means I am considering voting for him.
You are now making my point and arguing against RDC. Apparently you have not realized that either.
Better slow down and think things through before your next absurd comment.
So by your own words you would vote for Biden if
Yet you never said you would not vote for him in the case of the four conditions you had asked me about ( if he murdered someone, was caught selling secrets, raped, convicted of felonies) if those first two conditions were met. By definition that means you would vote for him if he murdered someone, was caught selling secrets, raped, convicted of felonies as long as trump had a realistic chance to win the presidency and/or his VP pick would make a decent VP.
I would ask what Biden would have to do for you to say you would not vote for him even if your two conditions were met but I really don't care
Incredible how some peoples words have to be explained to them
I know. And sometimes you can try to explain it to them 4 times and they still don't get it.
That is because we have answered the questions, just not how you want them answered
Ditto from me................It's weird
Except it's completely accurate. Accurate statements are now "misleading". How very Orwellian.
You're about to confirm my point, aren't you? Actually, several points. Thanks in advance.
No it doesn't. They just happen to be the two that I chose, knowing that everyone would know exactly who I was talking about.
Right. So as I stated, it's not enough not to vote for Trump. It's not enough to make fun of Trump. You have to join the mob and match their level of hysteria.
you told me you were considering Biden, and I believed you.
Excellent idea!
I'm confused upon how I will be able to deliver upon such a promise.
Maybe I could go to the polls, refuse to select Joe Biden's name, then take the ballot, throw it on the floor, stomp on the part where a Trump vote would go, and then put it back in the machine.
Just an idea. I'm open to better suggestions.
Who said it was a summary description of anyone? What he said was "Apparently it involves either a senile elderly man who will never be able to finish a second term, or an orange elderly man causing liberals to foam at the mouth in full hysteria."
Senile elderly man is no more a summary description of Biden than elderly orange man is for Trump. Why only have heartburn for one description and not another, especially for a non partisan? (rhetorical question)
Never said that.
Oh c'mon you know you did....................../S
I am not the one that seems totally confused by every statement someone says
So you are voting for Biden if Trump is winning and Good VP even if Joe is a murderer.
Right
The verbal diarrhea is strong here.
Pretty sure there is a blood oath in there someplace also.
just as easy to pretend you did as it is pretending you never answered.
Yea, sometimes the synapses are misfiring. Thank God there is someone here to tell me what I say and what I mean by it.
Where exactly do I suggest that you are voting for Trump?
In comparison to Trump (a comparison I was making), yes. Trump clearly does not care about anything other than himself. Is it your opinion that every career politician necessarily makes decisions for their own best interests in spite of the interests of their constituents?
Not 'will be'; 'could be'. Factors negatively influenced by presidential decisions included: disinformation/conspiracy theories, attacks on democracy, inflation, high-interest rates, supply-chain problems, pandemic fears and limitations, unemployment, wars, reduction of credibility (and thus value) of the USD, poor healthcare, poor education, divisive environment, environmental degradation, infrastructure degradation, increased discrimination / bias, immigration problems, public safety, etc.
The PotUS has limited ability to improve matters in most of these factors but, unfortunately, a stronger ability to worsen any of these factors.
You are trying to argue that the choice of PotUS does not matter. That is absurd at its onset.
Yes, as an individual the best you can do is nullify a Trump vote. That is what I stated.
Deflection ... tangent.
Well first of all, I am not a fan of Biden. So your question is misplaced. And limiting this to daily life is stupid since presidential decisions often taken years to have an effect. We should talk about PotUS' in general and I already addressed that. But there are a few things like helping encourage e-vehicle infrastructure that I personally applaud. I also applaud his attempts to counter the anti-climate-change idiocy and keep the USA focused on doing our part in this complex problem.
Did you expect that your vote alone will accomplish something? No? Then why are you talking about it? I have never suggested that a single vote makes a difference; it is the aggregation of single votes that makes a difference. For example, I do not believe that MAGA comprises 60% of the GOP but it appears (illusion) that way because the MAGA vote established a momentum and others then jumped on the wagon. If those others in total were to align instead with traditional GOP, Trump likely would NOT be the shoe-in for the nomination.
I know, I asked him to stop a few times but he just won't.
No that is not 'by definition'.
I would vote for Biden under the conditions I specified and none of them included him being a murderer, etc. I would not vote for Biden (anyone) if he were a murderer, rapist, felon, traitor, etc.
Now you. Is there any point —anything that Trump can do— that would cause you to determine that he should not be allowed the powers of the presidency?
Yes, Jack, one can make a statement that is in itself accurate and be misleading. For example: "Jack voting for Trump would show a major lapse in judgment." is an accurate statement and it implies that you would vote for Trump. That is misleading, but the statement is accurate.
Do you normally summarize subjects by ignoring the most prominent factors and go instead for two lesser?
I gave you plenty of examples of negative factors that are easily applied to Trump. I was, of course, illustrating that your choice of "orange" and "old" was laughable as was your defense that these are just the ones you chose ... as if by accident.
You are delusional.
I know exactly who "people like you" are.
A far-right winger pretending to be a centrist.
Just amazing how low your comments will go in dishonesty. See 2.1.148
When were you first blessed with telepathy?
What are tonight's lottery numbers?
141 is before 148
TSK TSK TSK
He never said he summarized subjects, that is all you. Why do you try to put words into other peoples mouths? He explained it and then I explained it. See 2.1.137. Yet you hang on to your bullshit.
Have always been able to "read" truth and lies.
An uncle wrote several books on the subject.
Seems claircognizance runs in the family genes.
More deflection from you.
Is there any point —anything that Trump can do— that would cause you to determine that he should not be allowed the powers of the presidency?
Probably if there turns out there really is a Russian pee tape.
Where exactly did I accuse you of doing so?
Agree 100%. It's your overly optimistic take on Biden that is problematic.
They don't survive in politics if the primary decision driver is not self-preservation. If the constituents benefit, that's a happy accident.
Well, we have historical data on both guys. Do you see where this is going?
Exactly my point. Only about half of your list there is tangible, and more than half of that list was actually better when Trump was president.
The rest of your list (in red) is perception or feeling... and even some of that has been worse under Biden.
No. I am arguing ... and indeed have stated exactly several times ... that Biden and Trump are both unfit for the position. There is much less difference than you want to believe between two unfit candidates. If we had a good candidate, everything would be different.
Not at all. You are claiming with some urgency that we should all vote for Biden, so it's fair to ask how that helps us all. So far the only answer is "it keeps Trump out of office".
I like the green energy initiatives as well. But they don't begin to outweigh his very poor overall performance, which is only likely to get worse as he ages.
Now, if you think Biden is doing a good job, that's fine. That's your opinion and I would expect you to vote accordingly.
I don't think he's up to the job, and "keeping Trump out of office" is not sufficient reason for me to vote for him. I'm not terrified of Trump the way some other people are.
I don't know how many more times you need to answer the same thing
I stopped taking his questions seriously a while ago. He is not interested in my opinion as much as he likes to hear himself talk (or read what he wrote). I will let him ask questions and make up his own answers, that is what he is doing anyway. Sure doesn't need any input from me to tell me what I say and think.
The references were identifiers. They were brilliantly effective because you knew exactly who I was talking about, didn't you?
The idea that I should not refer to Trump unless I use a level of criticism that meets your approval is just batshit crazy.
excellent!
Follow the thread.
Is it your belief that every PotUS has focused exclusively on what is good for them and did not try to do what they personally believed is best for the American people?
Preserving political status as a PotUS does not preclude choices; presidents have routinely made choices that vary from public opinion. You apparently think that none of our presidents intentionally make responsible, statesmanlike choices for what they believe is best for the nation but rather exclusively focus on self-preservation. That is acutely cynical and historically naive; some obvious examples:
Your question was not about Trump or Biden but of the impact presidential decisions can have on our lives. Everything on that list impacts our lives. Your claim is that it does not really matter who is PotUS; I wholeheartedly disagree.
I have not stated otherwise; in fact I have agreed. So why make this strawman claim?
This is much more difference than you recognize. See, we can both just make claims.
Where exactly did I make any comment like that? What you will find is that I have argued that we should all be working to ensure Trump is not elected. Indeed, I have specifically encouraged GOP members to work to get Haley as their nominee. And I have specifically encouraged D members to get someone other than Biden or at least get a decent VP who would make a strong PotUS.
I have stated this repeatedly for many months on this forum yet here you go (as with others) just making shit up.
I agree, but that was NOT the point. You asked me about things Biden has done that helped everyday people so I gave you an answer. You did not ask me to make an argument for why he is a good PotUS so do not recast my answer as if that was your question.
And here again, you are recasting my answer to make it look as though I think Biden is a good PotUS.
As I have stated repeatedly for over a year now, Biden should not be running for office. He is too old and there are numerous policies (e.g. immigration, student loans, etc.) that I am very much against. So again, you ignore what I have made abundantly clear on this forum and pretend I am a Biden supporter.
Keeping Trump out of office is the primary reason I would vote for Biden. Since I can recognize the profound difference between these two old men, when it comes to deciding between two individuals who should not be PotUS, I will vote against the one who is worse. Trump is worse than Biden by an order of magnitude. If you truly do not see this (and I do not buy your claim that you do not think it matters) then that explains why so many other conservatives who are less aware than you are sticking with Trump.
Going for full blown intellectual dishonesty now?
My comment was that you chose to summarize Trump in warm and fuzzy terms: "orange" and "elderly". With all that Trump has done, you think that "orange" and "elderly" are the most appropriate ways to characterize him? You are surprised that someone would make note of your unusually gentle characterization of Trump?
If you had two words to negatively characterize Trump as part of a historical record, and you were being completely honest, would you use "orange" and "elderly" rather than terms like "narcissist", "traitor", "liar", ...?
I think it ends if you click your heels 3 times while chanting "Biden good, Trump bad"
Most if not all of those things could also describe Biden [Deleted]
To where? Fantasyland?
Is that what I said? Why would it be an all-or-none scenario?
I think I said "tangible" and "measurable". Yep, I even repeated it. Not surprised that you're trying to ignore that, though. Your entire point depends on avoiding that.
About half of those items are just matters of your perception and do not impact our lives in any tangible or measurable way. For every intangible/immeasurable item on your list, there is somebody who will see it differently, and since there are no metrics, they're just as right as you are.
No. Try again. I've explained it several times.
Then why do you insist on misrepresenting my views over and over and over again?
No. Again. Hence the word "if".
No. Again. I neither said nor implied any such thing.
It seems to be the only reason. Again, that's not enough for me. I'm not afraid of Trump, and voting solely to keep him out of office seems almost cowardly.
One is senile and the other is orange?
With any luck, one or both will have a stroke between now and then and it won't come to that.
And yet you cannot demonstrate how Biden's presidency has been tangibly and measurably better than Trump's.
I'm not going to repeatedly misrepresent other people's views like you do so often, no.
Riiiight. Tell you what.... head down to your local bar, find some old dudes drinking whisky, and describe them as "orange elderly men". See how warm and fuzzy your night goes from there.
So AGAIN (third time), you are bitching about me describing Trump while failing to use a level of criticism that meets your approval.
Hmmm.....
To review here, you accuse me of "intellectual dishonesty" for identifying your bullshit behavior ..... which you immediately proceed to repeat. The irony there is staggering.
So far you've attempted to describe accurate statements as "misleading" and identification of repeatedly observed behavior as "dishonest". This really is looking a bit Orwellian.
Am I writing for the historical record? Because if I were, I would use facts and not feelings.
I confess I'm still a bit surprised how it's apparently completely lost on you that I chose the word elderly to describe both Biden and Trump because I am making a point to demonstrate their similarities.
Having some key board issues, I see.
If you recognize that other PotUS' in history have indeed worked for the good of the people and not necessarily made every decision for their own political gain then you would know that this is not always a "happy accident". Your "happy accident" position is naive and absurd (and of course cynical).
An artificial narrowing. The impact a PotUS can have on lives does not need to be tangible and measurable to be real. You do not get to make a challenge and then artificially narrow the allowed answer. Further, I would need only one example to answer even your most narrow question. So why are you complaining that I included some items that do not meet your artificial criteria?
Ignoring a series of you flat out denying what you have written and making more dishonest personal allegations. I will tolerate some level of antagonist, personal, dishonest banter but you have now well passed the point.
On this final dishonesty from you. I stated that " Trump is worse than Biden by an order of magnitude." I am talking about Trump the individual vs. Biden the individual in terms of their fitness to serve . Yet again you intentionally misrepresent my position.
Since you have included this new twist, is it your position that in terms of policy and executive actions it does not matter who is PotUS? Do you see their presidencies as equivalent? Seems to me that you would vote for Trump if your primary consideration was his presidency rather than fitness for office.
There is no comparing a traitor who is the only PotUS in our history to attempt to steal a US presidential election through coercion, lying, fraud, and incitement to a PotUS who is showing his age and whose policies are (big surprise) aligned with the D party. Trump has demonstrated that he will throw the CotUS and the nation under the bus. Trump continues his Big Lie even today and has been found liable for sexual assault, financial fraud, and is under 91 pending felony counts.
You claim that a vindictive Trump is equivalent to Biden ("unfit is unfit"). Bullshit. Both should not be PotUS, but Trump is clearly the worse of the two by an order of magnitude.
You labeled Biden as senile and elderly and then labeled Trump as orange and elderly . The elderly label is the similarity so that now leaves Biden= senile and Trump= orange representing the contrast.
Orange is such a damning characteristic in this comparison.
You left yourself one word to identify the difference between these two elderly men and you choose to label Biden senile and Trump orange .
And you are just besides yourself in surprise as to why anyone would challenge your characterization.
If you had one word to describe Trump accurately for historical purposes, would you choose " orange "?
Next time you do this, I recommend " traitor " as substantially more accurate and descriptive than " orange ". So now let's see how that plays with your original comment:
Oh gee, looks like we have a problem. By accurately describing Trump (rather than calling him "orange") your point about liberals foaming at the mouth in full hysteria makes no sense. You just lost the bullshit foundation for your hyperbole.
Your comparison was not serious or thoughtful. It was simply antagonistic. Your use of "orange" completely ignores the problems with Trump but that is okay since you just wanted to attack JR.
But you are surprised by the challenge ...
I find this interesting and very telling. If people had any faith at all in the likely dem nominee it would seem it wouldn't bother them so much if people did not use the approved words when describing Trump or insist on people saying they would not consider Trump one year before the election. They wouldn't care how you described him or anyone considered him. Their guy would make the consideration brief and their guy would win in a landslide. It is obvious they are afraid of the elderly orange man and want, no need, everyone to share their fear.
As evidenced DAILY right here............
And of course you follow with the same ridiculous downplaying of Trump. Summarizing Trump as an elderly orange man is absurdly dishonest. You use "orange" to describe a vindictive traitor who is the only PotUS in our history to attempt to steal a US presidential election through coercion, lying, fraud, and incitement — an individual who demonstrably will throw the CotUS and the nation under the bus. A seemingly delusional, narcissistic liar who continues with his Big Lie even today and has been found liable for sexual assault, financial fraud, and is under 91 pending felony counts.
So why do it? Why ignore all that is Trump and soften it down to "orange"? I doubt you are convincing anyone that Trump is not all that I described. Or do you actually believe that the most accurate description of Trump is "an elderly orange man"?
It would seem they wouldn't care but they do. Exact language when it suits them, and pretending that only they "understand" things. Demands for precise wording is going way too far and is ridiculous.
Demanding people reject someone, and if you don't use the proper words, well then, you never did at all!
I remain wondering why it is so freaking important this far out from the election when they KNOW many people don't make decisions this early.
You cannot figure out why people challenge those who might, after all we know, still vote for Trump??
Notice how some never characterize Biden as a liar? Or corrupt?
I guess perhaps THAT language is too tough and accurate!
You can't figure out it isn't any of your business who anyone else votes for?
Vote for Biden if you think he is doing a good job despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Anything discussed in this forum is everyone's business. Learn the basics.
If you cannot stand to be questioned then you probably should not be engaging in such a forum.
And some do characterize Biden as a liar since he is known for his exaggerations and lies (his entire career). So stop pretending that everyone is as hypocritical as those who absurdly downplay and equivocate for Trump.
As for corruption, all politicians are arguably corrupt to some degree. The exact level of Biden's corruptness will be determined from sound evidence and that is still in process. Surely you want more than verbal claims and circumstantial evidence (i.e. money going into Hunter's accounts, Biden having meetings) before you assert that he is a traitor, or equivalent. Or is being a D sufficient for you?
Now, just so this is clear, if Biden is shown to have sold out the USA I will deem him a traitor just as I deem Trump a traitor. The difference right now is that Trump's traitorous acts (during his Big Lie in particular) are public knowledge. Biden's evidence is not even remotely as clear.
Oh, okay, I'll do my very best to remember that.
Once again, a ridiculous comment.
Applies directly to you also.
Not of a personal subject such as how one would cast their vote. It, as said, is no one else's business but their own whom they support or how they will express their preferences. Learn the right to privacy and just because someone is here, doesn't mean they are automatically privy to personal information of others. Stop badgering. It makes you look small and closed minded.
In general you are right, but when people such as on this forum try to claim they are not Trump supporters and then refuse to say they will vote against him are highly suspect.
Yes. Generally, we refer to such people as reasonable conservatives.
You seem big on telling others what they think, what to do, and how they should respond to whatever you are serving up that day. How's that working for ya?
READ my post. Do you think I was referring to all politicians or Jo Biden?!?!?!?!???????
No, but being a corrupt liar is.
Sure thing. I'll believe it when I see it as you have completely ignored the evidence collected already.
People who are actually anti-Trump dont have any problem saying so. When they hem and haw the truth gets nudged to the surface.
Tough shit. Don't read it. And just WHAT fucking affect does it have on your personal life to know?
Note that I have asked about voting for Trump, specifically. That is different from asking who someone will vote for. Get your facts straight before you launch into criticism.
Further, when people ask who I will vote for, I give them a direct, detailed answer. So not only do I NOT ask that question, I answer it when asked of me.
Trump, in case you have not noticed, is a vindictive traitor who is the only PotUS in our history to attempt to steal a US presidential election through coercion, lying, fraud, and incitement — an individual who demonstrably will throw the CotUS and the nation under the bus. A seemingly delusional, narcissistic liar who continues with his Big Lie even today and has been found liable for sexual assault, financial fraud, and is under 91 pending felony counts.
Asking why someone would NOT preclude voting for Trump is totally fair game.
Calm down and attempt to provide a thoughtful rebuttal. Pure emotion just illustrates you have no rebuttal.
If people dont want to have their bullshit questioned they shouldn't come on a forum.
If you don't understand what he wrote very clearly, ask him to explain it to you.
Get yours straight and realize that it is none of your business how they feel about voting for Trump. How, as i asked elsewhere, does what they think affect you personally except that you want them to feel exactly as you do........ad nauseum.
That is a personal decision and you don't have to answer just as no one has to answer you. Public forum or no public forum. You are NOT entitled to an answer.
Asking, absolutely. It is more, it seems the last few months, that it is the doorway to another long, drawn out rabbit hole. Badgering to get the answer you want, not so much. It is no skin off of your ass.
An entire post where you offered no thoughtful content.
People (other than Rs) do indeed charge Biden with being a liar. That has been true for decades. Pay attention.
Trump has already been shown overwhelmingly that he is a corrupt liar. Biden has been shown to be a liar and the GOP is working furiously to make their corruption charges stick. We are still at the allegation and circumstantial evidence stage with Biden. You are gleefully jumping the gun (what a surprise).
Like I said, if Biden sold us out he is a traitor. Currently the evidence against him does not come even remotely close to that against Trump.
EXACTLY.
The are under absolutely NO obligation to answer. Their choice. To continue to question is both arrogant and childish at the same time. And again, what would their answer do to you personally?
An asinine comment.
Rarely do Democrats admit Biden lies.
Oh, joy.
Another asinine comment meant only to insult and inflame.
SMMFH
Pointless strawman, as I am not arguing that.
And they are doing it!
Yet another asinine, false comment.
Sigh.
There are a select group here who play a little game. They make vague comments and then when challenged play endless games of deflection (and lying) to wiggle out of being clear. They want to leave an impression but realize they do not have a prayer to back up that impression. So when I hold them accountable, they claim that they have already answered and that I am just "badgering".
It is a transparent and pathetic little game they play.
Emphatically. Moreover, it is not like anybody in here is going to whip anybody's "anything" over who they choose to give their support/vote. We spend days, weeks, months, and years 'together' exchanging statements about our interests and values so of course from time to time a "personal" - get to know you - question comes to the forefront (out of the background).
First, your assessment of the actions of several of the presidents you listed is much more optimistic than it is accurate. Secondly, most of those people were not in politics for 4 decades before their presidency.
You imagine me to be both naive and cynical simultaneously.
Only because you find it inconvenient. You have said that the "primary reason" you will vote for Biden is to keep Trump out of office, failing to understand that most of the reasons you want to keep Trump out of office are less important to the average American family than the price of a gallon of gas or a pound of ground beef.
Why is it that whenever somebody points out how you may be wrong you immediately accuse them of failing to understand or intentionally misrepresenting what you said? It's fascinating to watch person after person tell you that you have misunderstood or misinterpreted a comment... and apparently you think the problem is all of us.
I know what you said and I didn't misrepresent anything.
I identified an alternate point in the discussion that you seem desperate to ignore. It should be supremely obvious that the primary measure of "fitness to serve" in any capacity is "how good are you at the job". In that regard, we have historical measurable data on both of these men, and neither one is very good at being president.
I realize you're afraid of him. I'm not. You give him far too much credit, IMO.
It's a bit like saying "Ronald Reagan is dead, but Charlemagne is an order of magnitude more dead".
You've gone EIGHT more paragraphs worth of batshit on my failing to use a level of criticism that meets your approval You really don't see how fucked up that is, do you?
Do I need to submit future posts for your approval? Is there some Ministry of Truth of which I was unaware?
Right. You may wanna grab a napkin or a towel or something.
Fitness for office is ethical or behaviorally construed, not based on "results". Results are in the eye of the beholder. You may think getting three right wing judges on the Supreme Court is a good result , someone else might think it was terrible. Same for just about all of Trump's "achievements" and the same goes for Biden or Obama too.
Fitness for office is a separate issue. It would seem easy to conclude that someone who lied 30,000 times to the American people, while he was in office, is not fit to continue in that office. Same for his massive dereliction of duty on Jan 6th. Same for his attempt to extort the government of Ukraine to investigate his political opponent. Same for the legal judgement against him that he sexually assaulted a woman. Same for his daily lunatic pronouncements in recent weeks and months. Same for his declaration that his second administration would be filled with "retribution" towards those who have crossed him. And on and on and on.
All those are the "result " of his manifest unfitness for office.
Ethics are important and may be the sole driver for you. Nobody would fault you for that. But results do matter. Jimmy Carter was one of the most ethical presidents in US history. But he wasn't a good president.
Some are. Some are measurable and undeniable.
You may think those are three right-wing judges. They're just not.
As I've been telling TiG, Trump's track record wasn't particularly good, and neither is Biden's. Obama's was much better, especially after 2010. Clinton's was very good except for Gramm Leach Bliley, and Reagan's was very good.
I think I've spent 20 posts at least confirming I don't believe Trump is fit.
But I don't believe Biden is fit, either. I don't think any rational person looks at Biden and believes he would be physically or mentally able to finish a 2nd term.
Jimmy Carter was not unfit for office. Trump is.
That's debatable. He certainly wasn't up to the job.
Yes John. We've agreed on that. Again.
A mere claim of 'optimistic'. Not persuasive.
So what? I illustrated that being PotUS does not mean every decision is done for personal political gain. If you want to argue that 40 years in politics means that as PotUS one is incapable of intentionally making decisions for the good of the nation then make your case. Mere claims are irrelevant.
I observe cynical (as you declared) comments from you that superficially gloss over historical facts.
It is dishonest.
Correct. If I vote for Biden it will almost certainly be because Trump is the GOP nominee and has a reasonable chance to win.
What you imagine is important to the average American has nothing to do with my reasons for voting against Trump. Trump would likely address the illegal immigration problem which is good and he might even have a positive psychological effect on the economy. But none of that changes the hard-stop fact that Trump is a traitor who should never be trusted with the power of the presidency.
Now, you did not vote for Trump in 2020 and have stated you will not vote for him in 2024. But your reasons for not voting for Trump are less important to the average American family than the price of a gallon of gas or a pound of ground beef. So are you going to change your mind and vote for Trump now ... based on your 'reasoning'?
That is a lie. When I speak of fitness to serve and you translate that into a comparison of what these men did as President, you are dishonestly misrepresenting what I wrote even in spite of the rich context that clarifies my meaning. And you are now lying again in your denial.
Yet that is not the point I made (and you know that). I have stated clearly, repeatedly, for months now that Biden is too old. His frailty is the reason he should not run for PotUS. As for Trump, the reason is that he is a traitor who is apparently delusional and clearly puts his own desires before the CotUS and the nation.
A childish taunt. Why stoop to the feeble tactics of those who cannot forge an argument and must resort to such crap?
If you are going to use such an example, it would be more like Reagan had a historical impact but Charlemagne's was an order of magnitude greater. Regardless, another key difference is that we are talking about the character of two living individuals who both seek to be the next president. You stop at the simplistic "both are unfit" yet one of them will likely be PotUS. So now a sensible mind would consider who would be worse for the nation. The "both are unfit" logic is incomplete analysis.
On this point, how is it possible that you do not see a substantial difference between Biden (a past his prime D) and Trump (a traitor)? Go beyond the belief that neither should be the nominee and deal with the likelihood that one will be the PotUS. Do you see no difference in character, responsibility, or integrity? No difference in who you would prefer as the face and voice of our nation? Going further, if you state again your belief that a PotUS will make no meaningful difference to the average American, then why do you ever vote for any PotUS? Clearly you have considerations that go beyond "difference to average American".
Finally, if you do not see a difference between Biden and Trump then why not just vote for Trump? You appear to lean conservative so why not just vote for the policies you favor if all other things are equal?
What I see is you getting your feathers ruffled because I dared criticize your characterizing Trump with the "elderly orange man" euphemism which dramatically downplays the major flaw of this abysmal character. Calling my responses to you "batshit" is funny (pathetic, but funny).
More childish crap. Do you think "orange" is a more accurate single word description of Trump than "traitor"? How about "narcissist" ... is that less accurate than "orange"? Is "pathological-liar" less accurate than "orange".
Your characterization of Trump is sanitized compared to what he really is. You should expect that to be challenged.
More childish taunts in lieu of a rebuttal.
Clearly your taunt of JR does not work if you accurately characterized Trump. So you had to describe Trump as "elderly orange man" (a ridiculously gentle characterization when compared to reality) so that you had a (albeit dishonest) foundation to tag JR with "liberals foaming at the mouth in full hysteria".
My position:
I think this is the 5th time I have said it is not summarizing Trump. Just like I don't list a list of Joes shortcomings every time I mention his name. If that is a problem it is your problem. I have no desire to help you get over it.
The word whackadoodle comes to mind.
Get used to the idea. There are millions that would vote for him and millions more that might vote for him.
There is a huge difference between being a Trump supporter and refusing to state they would never, under any circumstance even consider voting for him a year before the election. If you really can't see that it explains alot.
You can say it 50 times and it still will not make it true.
If one describes Trump using ONLY two adjectives, that is ipso facto a summary description. It may not be accurate, but it sure as hell is a summary by any definition of the word 'summary' ("a brief statement or account of the main points of something.") I am aware of.
An entirely different issue. You stating Biden's name is referencing him. You are identifying the subject, not describing it. If you then apply adjectives such as "Biden is elderly and senile" and offer no other adjectives, you are summarizing Biden in terms of those adjectives. And if you apply adjectives to Trump such as "Trump is elderly and orange" and offer no other adjectives, you are summarizing Trump in terms of those two adjectives.
That is how English works.
If one is going to characterize Trump with ONLY two words, I have no objection to "elderly" as one because as a presidential candidate, his 77 years of age is a very relevant characteristic. But "orange" is waaaaay down on the list of relevant characteristics. Clearly anyone who has paid any attention to Trump knows that his wrongdoing, his current troubles, or his candidacy have nothing whatsoever to do with his skin tone (or derisive comments about his skin tone).
In short, Trump being "orange" is almost an entirely irrelevant characteristic compared to the obvious ones of "liar", "traitor", "narcissist", ...
I just think you are using the wrong verbiage!
Not only do they need to know who you will vote for they need a declaration of who you would not vote for. Small and close minded is being nice.
There is a big difference between questioned and badgered, browbeat, cajoled, bullied, harassed, etc. Maybe it would help if you learned the difference.
Do you get paid by how many times a day you list Trumps shortcomings?
Asking is fair game, badgering, cajoling, harassing, etc because you don't like/understand the answer is not. It shows a weak petty person that is having a tantrum because they didn't get their way.
I hope you try to remember that.
You really think that will help?
Are you giving them demerits? Are they put on double secret probation when they reach a certain number of them?
Not a snowball's chance in hell!
isn't the lecture punishment enough?
Wow, you are really hung up on anyone using the wrong adjective before the name Trump. Let me reiterate that is a you problem and I sincerely doubt anyone is going to feel the need or desire to help you get over it.
The condescension is a bit much but to tell you the truth if it is longer than 3 lines I kinda stop reading it figuring the rest is just the same thing being regurgitated again and again and again.
Exactly!
Not just optimistic. Inaccurate too.
Which doesn't explain naive. Never mind. Looks like you need to concentrate more on the difference between fact and opinion.
That appears to be your word of the day to describe anything that challenges your preconceived ideas.
Not what I said. Again. I've explained that situation repeatedly. You just don't like the answer. I realize it upsets you when I cloud an issue with facts. Not sorry.
Never said it was. On the contrary....it's a point you want to ignore. That does not make it invalid.
A true statement. You have told us all you will vote for a man you know to be an unfit candidate solely to keep the boogeyman from the WH door. You have made several statements about "attacks on democracy" and "throwing the Constitution under the bus". (As if either of those institutions could be overthrown so easily.) Those are expressions of fear. The only reason to vote the way you say you will based on the decision criteria you have given is that you are afraid of what a 2nd Trump presidency will do to America.
That's fine, BTW. There's no shame in that. I just don't happen to share the view.
A sensible mind would recognize that the definition of "worse for the nation" is subjective, and will vary from person to person. Your statements have repeatedly focused on Trump's galactic-sized character issues and his legal issues. I have made it quite clear that my primary metric for "worse for the nation" is a function of what that person will actually DO in office.
Saving the complete stupidity of the phrase "past his prime" and the inaccuracy of the term "traitor" for later..... How is it possible that you need this explained again? Both of these men are unfit for office. Haven't we agreed on that? The end result of electing either one is an exceedingly poor outcome.
You may want to consider the idea that electing either of these unfit men creates a very high probability of a Constitutional crisis during their term. Trump will do something Trumpish because he thinks rules aren't real. Biden will need to be replaced due to health and senility, and we'll have one of the biggest shitshows in US history over it. Biden is not just "past his prime". He is past the point where there is any reasonable likelihood he will be able to complete another term.
Have I said that. *sigh* Why do you keep doing this?
Not what I said. Again.
Right. That's exaaaactly what's happening..... I'm not making fun of you or anything. (I realize you're not catching it.) For the second time in a week, you've taken a single, off-the-cuff statement and started your own little religious crusade over it.
It's all the more hilarious when you have just described Joe Biden as "past his prime".
More analysis!! Excellent. Maybe you can draw us all another Venn diagram.
1. Agree 100%
2. Agree 100% with added sadness and disgust at the situation
3. The end result of either one being elected is very probably a complete shitshow during most of their term with bonus Constitutional crisis.
4. That probably happens whether he gets elected or not.
5. Agreed. We also shouldn't elect a person who has no chance of finishing the term.
Challenging your comments is not badgering. Crying "badgering" when challenged is no substitute for your failure to rise to the challenge. Crying "badgering" is just another method of running from a direct question.
Several people here would beg to differ. The only common denominator seems to be you. But you just keep trying to convince them it is everyone else. Hate to break it to you but no one is buying it, especially anyone on the receiving end of your badgering.
If you had to give 5 word summary description of Joe Biden for a historical document you would use "a past his prime D"?
No, I have stated, like a rational adult, that Trump should never be allowed access to the presidency. In 2024 we likely will have the displeasure of choosing between two men who should not be president. One because he is too frail for another four years of the office. The other because he is a traitor (one of many very negative characteristics).
I have stated that between bad and much worse, I would choose bad.
You have argued that it does not matter if Biden or Trump is elected because "unfit is unfit". That imposes a false equivalency.
I have not used the phrase "attacks on democracy". You are confused. But I do indeed refer to Trump's willingness to throw the CotUS under the bus if it serves his personal purposes. He showed us that in clear terms in his Big Lie con job.
I did not write that Trump would overthrow the CotUS, I wrote that he would throw it under the bus. Apparently you need me to explain this. That means that Trump is demonstrably willing to violate his oath of office merely to satisfy his ego.
Except I did not write the first one and you exaggerated what I did write into something that goes well beyond my meaning. Are you even aware of what you did?
Well, no, Jack. Here is the other way. I am against having a traitor serve as PotUS. Trump is a traitor. Thus there are no conditions where I would vote for him.
See? Fear has nothing to do with it. Instead of making shit up, just go with what I wrote. If you make an honest mistake, I am happy to explain my meaning. And even if your mistake was malicious, I will explain my meaning (at least once).
unfit is unfit. no two ways about it.
No, I think I would use these five words/compounds: timeworn, gaffe-prone, statesman, average, loyal
The word "timeworn" would be the adjective that captures the meaning of the phrase "past his prime" and the D I assume would have already been covered in the balance of the historical record.
Note that in what you cherry-picked, I effectively defined one summary characteristic each. For Trump I used "traitor" for Biden I used "past his prime" which I think is more expressive and understandable than the word "timeworn" but my meaning is the same.
Another lame gotcha attempt fizzles in your face.
Thanks for the brilliant
affirmation of a tautology and for illustrating that you entirely missed the point.
The only way anyone in their right mind can justify Trump as president is to drag Biden down to Trump's level and then claim "whats the difference, they both suck". This is actually behind the impeachment push.
Its never going to stop until after the election next year, if then.
Oops, sorry, didn't realize you had a point.
Biden is on a level all to himself.
Not really. Your adjectives are watered down more than the ones you accuse others of using.
I think the point is orange man bad
Sums it all up!
And I saved a couple hundred words
Bless you for that!
Wrong. There is unfit, really unfit, really really unfit................order of magnitude unfit.
yeah, I don't play those word games.
You just are tossing out anything to see if something sticks.
My adjectives for Biden are: timeworn, gaffe-prone, statesman, average, loyal
Now if it turns out that Biden sold out the USA then the first attribute will be "traitor".
Yes, you made it quite clear that you totally missed the point.
That explains why you are getting so many things wrong.
Sheesh, maybe there is a different between 77 and 80. Seems to be less 'mouth.'
LOL?
ROFL?
ROFLMAO?
President Trump Congratulates 'The Great State of Kansas' After Chiefs Super Bowl Victory
Trump is Einstein when compared to Biden …. of course that ain’t saying much.
Not much at all …..
My grandma is Einstein compared to Biden and she has been dead for 60 years.
Is it too much to ask that the commander in chief know the most basic elements of geography for the country he is in charge of? Even the dumbest people I know would know that Kansas City is not in Kansas.
Huh?.. would they also think Memphis is in Tennessee or that Texarkana is in Arkansas?..... Bristol, St Louis, etc. etc..
Sigh…..
Even morons know that the Kansas City Chiefs are from Kansas City, MISSOURI!
They would also know that Kansas City borders both states and there is a Kansas City Kansas also. I don't think many people know that Arrowhead stadium is on the Missouri side either. I didn't because frankly I don't care
Evan the dumbest people I know realize that there is a Kansas City, Kansas and a Kansas City Missouri.
I am not in any way shape or form a moron but I had no idea that the Chiefs were actually located in Missouri. As far as I am concerned, Kansas City is just one big city divided by a state border and which side of that border a football team.plays it's home games on irrelevant.
Talk about hanging a curveball over the plate.
Since you seem to know that are you finally making a confession?
Well in 2008 I thought that someone who wanted to be president would know how many states were in the country. You know 50 not 57. That didn't stop any of you from voting for him and he wasn't even in his 70's.
The only admission here is that his MAGAS do not care that Trump is sub-moronic...
You said
And you obviously know where the Kansas City Chiefs are from, it follows that if morons know something and you know something that would make you a ....
No, not at all. Everyone, including morons, should know that the 2022 Super Bowl Champions are the Kansas City Chiefs of Kanasa City Missouri. Only sub-morons, like El Trumpo, would not know this...
Sigh? Weirdest flex from a Trump sycophant I’ve heard yet. Why would you defend Trump in this? Do you know where the Chiefs are from?
I have lived on both sides of the border as a KC guy and am here to tell ya that KC Mo. doesn't deserve the Chiefs and KCK. just might.
Arrowhead Stadium (the KC Chiefs) is in KCMO. Right next door to the Royals (baseball team) Kaufman Stadium.
Interesting having world championship teams existing right across a parking lot from each other.
Seems the Mahomes' Also own a piece of the Royals. How cool is that?
Yes.... well.... Globe Life Field (Texas Rangers) is across the parking lot from ATT Stadium (Dallas Cowboys).
So we won't need to worry about multiple championships in the same parking lot this year.
A lot of you are missing the boat here. Trump said Kansas City is from Kansas because the word Kansas is in the name. That sums up everything he "knew" about the place.
Or he mixed up Kansas City, KS with Kansas City, MO.
Always defending the indefensible.
Defending? How did you jump to that conclusion?
It just came up to the top of the list of things to type.
Or maybe he's just mixed up in general?
I read somewhere he was smarter than all his generals, Mybe that's why they talked back?
A brilliant genus for sure.
Maybe he learned that in draft dodger school.
Where he attended with every democrat since Carter?
Could be he was a Dem then and collaborated with Bill Clinton and Joe Biden in DD School.
Oh I'm sorry, I was talking about trump. But since you went there, which draft did Obama dodge again?
No draft, he just didn't have the stones to serve. a pussy is you will. unlike Carter. a gentleman and intelligent, kind and compassionate, Did i mention Obama is a self centered piece of shit?
Where he hired his classmates to do his homework and take his tests for him.
All of Trump's professors agree that he was the dimmest bulb in the room.
Trump's supporters all agree that a college education is worthless.
Most Trump supporters also have a 50 word vocabulary.
I don't suppose you can prove your claims.
Any of them in that post.
Your posts are proof enough.
One of the more silly posts I have had the misfortune to read today.
I don't like Trump or you being silly.
There are several books on Trump's early days.
They all say the same thing about the insane bully.
Anybody who denies his lifelong insanity is a fool.
Another liberal BIG LIE. (These articles are from six weeks ago.)
Democrats are the ones claiming Biden is too old. In keeping with Democrats' gaslighting politics, they're blaming others for what they are doing.
PD&D plus delusion.
Well thank goodness Republicans would never do anything like that!
(/sarc)
Correct.
And Republicans are saying he isn't.
Remember Nerm:
LOVE IS HATE
WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS BLISS!
(Just close your eyes, make a wish-- and maybe it will be true!)
Orwell's 1984 is one of the best books ever written!
Orwell warned us about Trump and MAGA!
(placeholder)
At some point it would behoove you to just acknowledge that people HAVE answered you. Pretending otherwise is just silly when everyone can read the answers!
Just because you may not like the answer has no relation to whether or not they answered.
Then you cannot distinguish between a direct answer to a question and a dodge.
Here is an example. I have asked, in the past, if it was wrong for Trump to lie about the election being rigged, that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS, and that his supporters have been disenfranchised.
The "answer" was deflection without even a hint that the individual holds that Trump was wrong.
Once the individual asked for proof of the above so I delivered Trump's election night speech where he stated the above. In fact I delivered it several times in response to more deflection.
The individual then resorted to "I already answered the question". Just a flat out lie.
The game you, et.al. play is transparent and pathetic. You can at best high five each other while the balance of the readers are very likely shaking their heads at the feeble, dishonest tactics.
Much more probable a failure on your part.
Your penchant for asking the same thing repeatedly after receiving an answer is becoming legendary.