no, you don't understand. I couldn't have a lower opinion of Trump and I would vote Biden even if he was actually dead. you don't need to persuade me, Biden needs to persuade an independent and/or undecided voter.
I am not creating a self fulfilling prophecy by saying it's looking very, very bad. It is a fact.
The democrats are completely fucked because they have a bad candidate and not enough time to build up a replacement.
no, no candidate with a 37% approval rating can afford to debate like he did. what kind of message does this debate send to an undecised person or someone who doesn't follow politics? you can bet it'll likely move them towards Trump.
sorry to read that that, i'm not arguing being assaulted doesn't suck. it sucks at any age.
Trump would simply not debate him though.
We are completely fucked. For someone who doesn't know much about politics watching this debate will very likely pull them towards Trump. Considering the 2020 one when Biden was much stronger hinged on so few votes this debate was an absolute catastrophe. His approval is around 37% now and seems to be going down. I find it baffling, but his numbers are as bad or worse as Trump's was after the insurrection now and it is approaching Dubya levels financial crisis. It doesn't make any sense to me but this is what we have now. But even with this what you said is true and replacing him now is completely uncertain and Trump probably wouldn't even debate a new candidate if it was a good debater, he doesn't have anything to gain, the democrats would need to build up a candidate from the ground and why would he help them.
i don't know dude, this doesn't make too much sense to me. do you think that if this disrespect dude wanted to fuck a 5 year old that is the exact same thing than let's say a 16 year old? am I raising red flags if I say fucking a 5 year old is much worse? am I defending pedophiles with this statement somehow?
apparently can't but some of the evidence could becone inadmissible and he'll be retried
i don't think they will pass as official acts. but they will delay the decision until after the election and if Trump wins he'll probably avoid the entire thing.
Definitely not, a lot of atheists think he is an Islamphobe.
they are ignoring it because the other cases are probably completely screwed over by the ruling
oh there will be a check on power when a democrat is president. if Biden incites an insurrection you can bet 10+ dem senators will join the republicans to convict him. there will be no check on power for republicans though. there will be the odd lisa murkowski or mitt romney and that's it.
it sounds completely insane. It seems like impeachment will be the only method to hold accountable a president from now on, so with today's republican party that means Trump is immune of consequences for his bs where he can sell it as official capacity. I think that covers probably every one of his scandals during his presidency.
In case the SCOTUS decides what is an official capacity he has his 6-3 majority which will gift him all ambiguous cases as official capacity. I think unambiguous ones would not be gifted to him but he's kind of good at muddying the waters in this kind of thing.
I think the point is not that it's good, it's that it's not gonna change now so that's what we got.
i'm not even making an argument whether a particular 3rd party candidate is good or bad. aside of the libertarian party I don't think any of them could technically win. RFK Jr. for example is on the ballot currently on 30 states, that's counting the ones awaiting certification.
So yes, it kind of stands, casting your vote to a candidate that literally can't win is a waste. it's a statement you can make, but it's not gonna happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election
So this is more like understanding the system, not pushing it.
I don't know, do you know all the particulars of all of Assange's leaks? dude published millions of pages. it sounded like a reasonable statement
You might be right about these centrists but it is actually a valid position to take. I think Cenk for example is absolutely not gonna vote for Trump ever but he thinks Biden should step down.
we are using 'populism' in different meanings. originally it was just to appeal to the ordinary people who feel left behind, Trump and Sanders both do this. But a lot of people use it more like instead of the word "demagoguery". Hitler was a populist in both senses. Sanders and democrats don't really do the demagoguery that much, but Trump doesn't do anything that is not that. It's literally just say whatever you want, immigrants are causing inflation, fact checking doesn't matter, nothing matters. that is indeed very damaging to politics.
Somehow electing new politicians who have the ordinary people's interests in mind instead of the rich, and actually being able to pass legislation, that would be a kind of populism that a lot of people could get behind, and it is certainly very different of what the GoP is doing. These politicians like Sanders and Yang I think genuinely had the workers interests in mind and were constructive, good intentioned people, but their policies are unrealistic to be passed in today's USA.
not a Hasan fan at all but I watched 50 minutes of the video so far. where is exactly where he is advocating for Biden to lose? I don't agree what you said about anti intellectualism or dishonesty at all but this post is terrible. if anything Hasan was quite good here compared to what I was expecting...
Hasan Piker sits next to right wingers and stands in agreement that Biden should go, that they'll lose the election,
.... just like Destiny sits next to right wingers in Piers' show? Just like half of the democrats agree that Biden should step down for another candidate and they think he'll likely lose?
I don't think it's testing it . Harris would never vote for someone like Trump. I think he is angry because of the message this debate sent to the electorate.
Pretty much the way she speaks with that nasal voice is unlikeable, and... that's it? she had a shitty speech where she probably had nothing to say so half of it was filler words. also she has the same pivoting and non answering that 99% of other politicians.
seriously, that is pretty much the entire reason people hate her and her approval is even lower than Biden's when in fact she's been about as consequential as Pence. I think 90% of it is that she just doesn't sound good with that nasal voice.
people who say she is stupid have no idea what they're talking about. she was a prosecutor for decades. she is very harp, it's all about her persona.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHd_UlebyoM
yes, it's a shame she is not more popular and cannot overtake Biden but the reason for her unpopularity is not that clear in my opinion. people just like to bash her I guess because she seems entitled or used pc rhetorics or something? idk.
so weekend at bernie's with good policies vs an incoherent conspiracy theorist convicted felon who lies in every word, seeks to destroy democracy, shits on the environment and is a Putin fanboy.
i would enthusiastically bote for the dead guy every time.
if the opponent was anyone else this would have been outrageous. vs Trump a literal sack of shit would look like a grest choice.
why on earth would anyone want to develop ios on windows
An explicetly religious body directly enact legislation. That's a theocracy.
Nope, textbook theocracy is when the state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In my reading this doesn't mean that some religious matters being decided by a chief priest makes a state a theocracy.
Mind quoting where that is in the comment I responded to? Cause all I see as a question is "are they a theocracy?" Which I directly answered
yes, strictly in terms of this single question it would be irrelevant. but we are all talking about Israel because of and in the context of the war with Gaza, so it is very relevant that theocracy is not a rational jab against Israel, given how its adversaries are so much worse in this regard. and the comment to which you replied was a reply to another comment that was made in this context as well.
'textbook theocracy' would mean a system of government where the priests/church is the ruler. so it is not textbook theocracy.
also the initial claim specifically said it is a theocracy committing war crimes. so it is not a whataboutism or irrelevant at all that the other country in the equation (plus all surrounding countries) are theocracies.
are you trying to make the case that by stating facts and being pessimistic about the situation I'm working against Biden? I can see that point but I don't think on the Sam Harris sub of all I'm gonna affect his chances too much. Sam Harris himself has an even harsher opinion than me about this subject. And I'm always trying to convince people to vote the anti-democratic side. that doesn't mean at all that I'm just gonna pretend that everything is fine though.
Opinion | There’s a Name for the Trap Biden Faces (Gift Article)
samharris