With respect, I disagree. It often goes by the board, and when it does, we notice it. But when humans make something good happen, it's for one reason and one reason alone, and that reason is because it didn't go by the board in a real conflict, and we tend to ignore that because it's what we were expecting.
With respect, I disagree. It often goes by the board, and when it does, we notice it. But when humans make something good happen, it's for one reason and one reason alone, and that reason is because it didn't go by the board in a real conflict, and we tend to ignore that because it's what we were expecting.
For example, since Biden's election, and regardless of perception, the American economy has improved, crime is down, infrastructure improvements are improving people's lives, and America's standing in the world has gone from trending downward to trending upward. That is for one reason and one reason alone, which is an administration that follows the golden rule. They're not perfect, but authoritarians are the only people who claim to be perfect.
Ill stick with my comment. None of what you have just mentioned has stopped a "renegade" Dem movement (including Nancy Pelosi? ) from urging Biden to stand down, even given his extolling (rightly) the track record you are presenting.
That's because the billionaires & millionaires are withdrawing their funding because they do not want to pay taxes & after all, they're the ones running the show. Aren't they? Peter Theil is the money behind several organizations pushing for Biden to step down. He is also behind JD Vance's rise in politics. But wait! There's more yet. Check out 'X' regarding Nate Silver & .538. There is BIG MONEY being made placing bets on this election, as there is in whether or not Russia will use nukes & many other potential disasters that would destroy the lives of ordinary voters.
Yep, I wondered how long it would take for the American Oligarchs to pull out their long knives. Not just taxes - though that would be sufficient. Joe is also pro-union, anti-monopoly, pro-environment. Horrors! Think if the lost profits! Why, that would make any self-respecting Oligarch write a check for Hitler.
Marge, well said, and the analysis I've come to as soon as the democratic leadership asked Biden to step down. Always follow the money, since Citizen's United.
I agree. Here's what I would do if I was Nancy Pelosi. And I'm amazed she's not doing it because my respect for her is due to her record, which implies she understands the golden rule. FYI, I'm using scientific language because it's easy, but I can translate if necessary.
Because there are two conflicting hypotheses (Biden should remain the nominee or step down), there are two testable hypotheses. The conflict is not a to-be-neutralized threat. Instead, the conflict is a to-be-seized opportunity because you can't have a valid test of a hypothesis in a vacuum.
So, now you need two knowledgeable advocates to ensure that all the relevant evidence is included in the analysis. It's not initially obvious which hypothesis is supported by the evidence, and which one is refuted, but it is after the analysis is complete, which is when one hypothesis is confirmed, and the other is refuted, or the test is inconclusive, and that means don't change the status quo.
But that's not what's happening. Advocates of each hypothesis are using exclusively confirming evidence to support their hypothesis while ignoring refuting evidence. That's not science. Instead, it is the opposite of wise.
What I've just said is a little bit more complicated than saying "follow the golden rule," but they are just different words expressing the same meaning. And I know Nancy Pelosi to be a good Catholic, so she should know better.
Personally, I want the analysis to include all the relevant evidence because, although it seems clear to me that Biden should stay on, I know don't have enough info to know for sure.
I don't think Biden should stay on. No Democrat thinks Trump is better than Biden. It’s obvious that’s not the case to all but the MAGA crowd, who aren’t susceptible to logical argument anyway. [Please read the New York Times editorial today (Saturday the 20th), which offers a damning list of reasons Trump is unfit for office.]
As a longtime Biden fan who admires what he’s accomplished in the past four years, I nevertheless think he should withdraw his candidacy for the good of the country. I don’t think he can win, as unfair as that may be. He looks like a man on his last legs—and what he looks (and sounds) like matters in an election where Republicans are pumped up and Democrats dispirited. If Joe Biden withdraws and supports whoever replaces him vigorously, he will go down in history as a great statesman. If he continues his candidacy out of misplaced pride, he will end up a much more consequential Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who stayed too long and thereby did lasting damage to the country.
I will vote for the Biden/Harris ticket if that’s the choice, but I won’t contribute another dime to that campaign because I believe it’s a waste of money. I’m an old person who works with young people, and Biden has almost no support among them. Other people who are on the fence are not moving his way. We need a change to create some enthusiasm for a ticket that isn’t there now or we will have the second coming of Donald Trump, and God help us then.
I hear what you're saying, but I can't read your response without thinking you're ignoring valid concerns.
To me, its simple. This is not a spectator sport. This is not a movie or an episode of a TV show. In 2024, the two teams are Egalitarian Democracy and Authoritarian Autocracy, and everyone is a player on one of those two teams. Whether you're young or old, if you don't care, then by default, you're a player on the winning team, except you won't know what team you were playing for until November 5. Then, if the Authoritarians win, and you find out you can't get health care, and then the economy goes in the tank so the oligarchs can get fat and happy, and you're looking for someone to blame, there's only one place to look, and that's in the mirror.
It is not my intent to be insensitive. Instead, it is my intent to be truthful, and I'm doing my best to walk the line between the two.
Agreed on your conclusion. I don't have the evidence either, either-way. But if the Dems are to have a chance, they need to pull together, sooner the better.
Thank you Miselle. And thank you Beau. The only thing I would add is the consequence of where Beau ended. His analysis of a proposed change to the status quo (Biden as the nominee) is inconclusive.
We understand that a criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty. We should think of the status quo the same way. Lots of criminal defendants are found guilty. Likewise, the status quo is often found to be conclusively refuted. But "conclusive" means beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mr. Carey, what evidence would you consider conclusive? I see no way to determine conclusively whether Biden's staying at the top of the ticket provides the best chance for a Democratic win. If his team were both honest and courageous, they could run some polls that would be indicative but not conclusive.
Your reference to spectator sports and TV shows seems to me both insulting to those of us who disagree with you and, to me at least, naive. While I don't approach the presidential election or any state or federal election as a "show" and take my obligation to inform myself and make thoughtful choices seriously, a significant sector of the American public (or any set of voters in any country) has shown itself to be very susceptible to image and show, and on that basis, Biden is no longer a viable candidate in an election that promises, at best, to be close and at worst, to be a blowout for Trump.
As I was watching the "The Roads with Beau" video, I didn't know where he was going. I was open to the possibility he might end up convincing me that replacing Biden is the right thing to do. What I knew for sure is he was addressing the issues I expect someone advocating in favor of replacing Biden needs to address.
Am I being naive? It depends on how you define naive. My definition is that a person is not naive if they are open minded and skeptical. I'm open minded about replacing Biden, but I'm also skeptical. I described earlier in this thread what will and what will not change my mind.
I understand why someone doesn't buy a ticket to the game if the team sucks, or doesn't watch TV shows that suck. But being willing to watch impassively while the 250-year-old American experiment comes to a ignominious end because of how the Democratic candidate makes a person feel is an insult to the people who sacrificed their lives to make our freedom possible.
In summary, I believe I'm telling the truth in language anyone should be able to understand. So, tell me I'm wrong. No problem. But understand what I'm saying first and then tell me I'm wrong in language I can understand.
Alternatively, I'm not going to stop telling the truth just because someone finds it insulting. I've been insulted by the truth as well. Sometimes it hurts.
Jennifer Big ‘donors’ recently have been flocking to Trump. Thiel and Musk come immediately to mind.
Trump is attractive to them in part because of his promise of lower taxes for fat cats and corporations.
The big donor hold up of large pledges to the Biden campaign is quite distinct. These folks support what the Biden administration has accomplished and seek to support ‘Biden principles’ in government.
Their concern is that Biden is no longer in top form to be president of the United States for another four years and that his physical and mental weaknesses render him a likely loser in November.
They, like me, believe that a younger presidential team has a greater chance of obtaining a Democratic House and effectively countering Trump’s 2025 cult authoritarianism.
In a horse race, when an old mare has to be scratched, it is vexing immediately to identify a replacement. That’s where we are—-so get ready to put on your race paraphernalia and urge our choice to the finish line.
Keith, I always find your comments informative and well thought out. Respectfully, I disagree with you on this one, and I think this clip explains the whys better than I can.
Miselle I also find your comments informative. I would delight to find that President Biden has his full facilities to wage a vigorous presidential campaign, win against Trump on November 5th, and then commence serving a second term.
HOWEVER, this is not how I assess the evidence. I believe that we have been gaslighted by a White House cover up regarding President Biden’s physical and mental condition in 2024. In retrospect, the WSJ article on this in early June was accurate.
I have tremendous admiration for President Biden. At 90 I have been obliged to accept that physically I am sharply limited in what I can do for an extended period. (I like to believe that I am still mentally sharp).
My long-term memory seems excellent. (I recently completed 43 stories for Storyworth on aspects of my life). My short-term memory is dreadful. I can’t remember what I did yesterday and with whom I spoke. Also, my inability to recall names of current friends is distressing.
Compared to present-day Biden, Trump, and what he represents, is a disaster for the United States. HOWEVER, the ‘age factor’, as applied to Biden, could result in a near landslide for Trump and his sycophants in November.
This would not be a contest on issues. Trump would simply have to show videos of the June 27th debate and similar incidents.
In my view, the Democrats have a potentially winning campaign based on the democratic soul of America vs. Trump cult authoritarianism. I believe that a younger presidential team has a much greater chance of blunting Trumpism and, at a minimum, getting a Democratic House in November.
I acknowledge, at this moment, that this is a difficult time for those who support what the Biden administration has accomplished and what Project 2025 portends.
I continue to respect your opinions and hope that you do likewise with mine.
JD I only referred to the WSJ article AFTER its reporting was revealed accurate from multiple sources. The only Murdoch that I consider reasonable credible is the British mystery MURDOCH MURDERS, and that is only so so.
Thought Murdoch Mysteries was Canadian. God forbids I watch anything that has had Rupert’s paws on it. I remember being so distressed when he bought WSJ, so many chips in the fabric of our society.
Keith, anyone over 80 will experience mild lapses in memory. However, we are judging Biden without pointing out an important distinction. Are we electing a campaign manager or a President? He is very well qualified to govern. He is not the best campaigner, although, I must point out he is doing an outstanding job campaigning when he has an audience to motivate him. That debate was not good, but are we going to throw away all the times he's been outstanding? The polls are refuted by Simon Rosenberg and 538. I believe these polls are much more accurate than the gossip rag, that Robert Hubbell likes to refer to the NYT. Hopefully, the voters will see the difference. The polls say this is a very competitive race. Biden's debate did not change that, but the coverage and comments by democratic leadership can change that. We need to support the hundreds of thousands of workers in the field and not demoralize them. We must unite behind Biden, who has the best chance of winning.
Eadie The current Democratic situation is unprecedented in American political history. You believe that Biden has the best chance of winning in November. I do not.
We are both rational individuals. Were the 74,000,000 who voted for Trump in 2020 rational? It’s a horse race where one rider may not yet have been selected. What’s at stake is the soul of America.
Keith, I'd like to offer a slight correction. 74 million voted for Biden. 70 million voted for tRump. tRump received that many votes because there was wholesale treason going on, IMO. The Russians were in on the fix in 2016 and 2020. Hopefully, democrats will not accept the results of the upcoming election, if there is proof of fraud. Mueller and Barr warned us.
I do, Keith. And it is precisely because your comments are well thought out and articulated that I get offended with people who display ageism. It's also because of your lifelong experiences and knowledge base that I value your opinions.
I think Trump "messed up" our foreign policies so badly that I am struggling to find someone who brings Biden's experience to the table. Not just political relationships between two countries, but looking far ahead about how globally we will address climate change together. (ok, perhaps not that far).
From what I've read so far, those who might be up to the job don't appear to want the job. If we have an open convention, I'm not seeing a Lincoln emerge from it.
BTW, before the primaries in 2020, Buttigieg was my top choice, but I realized that much of America would not vote for a gay man.
I wrote to the president on X today to remember FDR and Konrad Adenauer and to please stick with US and Kamala (or maybe it was Kamala and US). Either way he can meet people and she can make the big campaign speeches and he can do the smaller ones and the “debate” if there is one.
This “race” is very winnable if the Dem pols would just recognize that in all likelihood their polls are all Russia-tainted and think of voters and their country instead of their donors (who might just decide to fall in line—surely some of them are moral beings(?)).
As one who lived with a husband whose early stage if small errors and forgetting turned to anger and some violence and, finally, total darkness. I’m not as concerned about the NOW as the Biden (who I have supported and cheered on until now) of 2026. It’s not a pretty picture.
I can't say I know how you feel because I haven't lived your life. But I do know that bad things happen to good people, that you and your husband were victims of something beyond what you or our health care system can control, and I understand why that, for you, raises a concern about Biden. But think about the fact that the best way to prevent what you're describing—anger, violence, and total darkness inside the Oval Office—is to vote, and vote Democratic. If that means voting for Joe Biden, and your worst fears come true, he will resign the office, or he will otherwise be removed, and then a vice president with character and competence will take his place. You can't say that about a candidate whose platform is literally anger, violence, and total darkness.
I am not qualified to assess someone's mental health, but I trust people that are until I have a reason to believe they're incompetent. The Whitehouse has a neurologist who does not have a concern about Biden mental health. Maybe he's biased, but that's pure speculation, and until someone gives me real evidence that would lead someone to believe his assessment was incompetent, that's good enough for me.
Have you watched Lawrence O'Donnell's "on what they don’t tell you about the Dump Biden fantasy" YouTube video? If not, my suggestion is to look it up and watch it all the way to the end.
With respect, I disagree. It often goes by the board, and when it does, we notice it. But when humans make something good happen, it's for one reason and one reason alone, and that reason is because it didn't go by the board in a real conflict, and we tend to ignore that because it's what we were expecting.
For example, since Biden's election, and regardless of perception, the American economy has improved, crime is down, infrastructure improvements are improving people's lives, and America's standing in the world has gone from trending downward to trending upward. That is for one reason and one reason alone, which is an administration that follows the golden rule. They're not perfect, but authoritarians are the only people who claim to be perfect.
Ill stick with my comment. None of what you have just mentioned has stopped a "renegade" Dem movement (including Nancy Pelosi? ) from urging Biden to stand down, even given his extolling (rightly) the track record you are presenting.
That's because the billionaires & millionaires are withdrawing their funding because they do not want to pay taxes & after all, they're the ones running the show. Aren't they? Peter Theil is the money behind several organizations pushing for Biden to step down. He is also behind JD Vance's rise in politics. But wait! There's more yet. Check out 'X' regarding Nate Silver & .538. There is BIG MONEY being made placing bets on this election, as there is in whether or not Russia will use nukes & many other potential disasters that would destroy the lives of ordinary voters.
Yep, I wondered how long it would take for the American Oligarchs to pull out their long knives. Not just taxes - though that would be sufficient. Joe is also pro-union, anti-monopoly, pro-environment. Horrors! Think if the lost profits! Why, that would make any self-respecting Oligarch write a check for Hitler.
Marge, well said, and the analysis I've come to as soon as the democratic leadership asked Biden to step down. Always follow the money, since Citizen's United.
I agree. Here's what I would do if I was Nancy Pelosi. And I'm amazed she's not doing it because my respect for her is due to her record, which implies she understands the golden rule. FYI, I'm using scientific language because it's easy, but I can translate if necessary.
Because there are two conflicting hypotheses (Biden should remain the nominee or step down), there are two testable hypotheses. The conflict is not a to-be-neutralized threat. Instead, the conflict is a to-be-seized opportunity because you can't have a valid test of a hypothesis in a vacuum.
So, now you need two knowledgeable advocates to ensure that all the relevant evidence is included in the analysis. It's not initially obvious which hypothesis is supported by the evidence, and which one is refuted, but it is after the analysis is complete, which is when one hypothesis is confirmed, and the other is refuted, or the test is inconclusive, and that means don't change the status quo.
But that's not what's happening. Advocates of each hypothesis are using exclusively confirming evidence to support their hypothesis while ignoring refuting evidence. That's not science. Instead, it is the opposite of wise.
What I've just said is a little bit more complicated than saying "follow the golden rule," but they are just different words expressing the same meaning. And I know Nancy Pelosi to be a good Catholic, so she should know better.
Personally, I want the analysis to include all the relevant evidence because, although it seems clear to me that Biden should stay on, I know don't have enough info to know for sure.
I don't think Biden should stay on. No Democrat thinks Trump is better than Biden. It’s obvious that’s not the case to all but the MAGA crowd, who aren’t susceptible to logical argument anyway. [Please read the New York Times editorial today (Saturday the 20th), which offers a damning list of reasons Trump is unfit for office.]
As a longtime Biden fan who admires what he’s accomplished in the past four years, I nevertheless think he should withdraw his candidacy for the good of the country. I don’t think he can win, as unfair as that may be. He looks like a man on his last legs—and what he looks (and sounds) like matters in an election where Republicans are pumped up and Democrats dispirited. If Joe Biden withdraws and supports whoever replaces him vigorously, he will go down in history as a great statesman. If he continues his candidacy out of misplaced pride, he will end up a much more consequential Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who stayed too long and thereby did lasting damage to the country.
I will vote for the Biden/Harris ticket if that’s the choice, but I won’t contribute another dime to that campaign because I believe it’s a waste of money. I’m an old person who works with young people, and Biden has almost no support among them. Other people who are on the fence are not moving his way. We need a change to create some enthusiasm for a ticket that isn’t there now or we will have the second coming of Donald Trump, and God help us then.
I hear what you're saying, but I can't read your response without thinking you're ignoring valid concerns.
To me, its simple. This is not a spectator sport. This is not a movie or an episode of a TV show. In 2024, the two teams are Egalitarian Democracy and Authoritarian Autocracy, and everyone is a player on one of those two teams. Whether you're young or old, if you don't care, then by default, you're a player on the winning team, except you won't know what team you were playing for until November 5. Then, if the Authoritarians win, and you find out you can't get health care, and then the economy goes in the tank so the oligarchs can get fat and happy, and you're looking for someone to blame, there's only one place to look, and that's in the mirror.
It is not my intent to be insensitive. Instead, it is my intent to be truthful, and I'm doing my best to walk the line between the two.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPRxuOWkr1E&t=6s
Agreed on your conclusion. I don't have the evidence either, either-way. But if the Dems are to have a chance, they need to pull together, sooner the better.
He is the incumbent. he has had a great record during his administration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPRxuOWkr1E&t=6s
Thank you Miselle. And thank you Beau. The only thing I would add is the consequence of where Beau ended. His analysis of a proposed change to the status quo (Biden as the nominee) is inconclusive.
We understand that a criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty. We should think of the status quo the same way. Lots of criminal defendants are found guilty. Likewise, the status quo is often found to be conclusively refuted. But "conclusive" means beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mr. Carey, what evidence would you consider conclusive? I see no way to determine conclusively whether Biden's staying at the top of the ticket provides the best chance for a Democratic win. If his team were both honest and courageous, they could run some polls that would be indicative but not conclusive.
Your reference to spectator sports and TV shows seems to me both insulting to those of us who disagree with you and, to me at least, naive. While I don't approach the presidential election or any state or federal election as a "show" and take my obligation to inform myself and make thoughtful choices seriously, a significant sector of the American public (or any set of voters in any country) has shown itself to be very susceptible to image and show, and on that basis, Biden is no longer a viable candidate in an election that promises, at best, to be close and at worst, to be a blowout for Trump.
As I was watching the "The Roads with Beau" video, I didn't know where he was going. I was open to the possibility he might end up convincing me that replacing Biden is the right thing to do. What I knew for sure is he was addressing the issues I expect someone advocating in favor of replacing Biden needs to address.
Am I being naive? It depends on how you define naive. My definition is that a person is not naive if they are open minded and skeptical. I'm open minded about replacing Biden, but I'm also skeptical. I described earlier in this thread what will and what will not change my mind.
I understand why someone doesn't buy a ticket to the game if the team sucks, or doesn't watch TV shows that suck. But being willing to watch impassively while the 250-year-old American experiment comes to a ignominious end because of how the Democratic candidate makes a person feel is an insult to the people who sacrificed their lives to make our freedom possible.
In summary, I believe I'm telling the truth in language anyone should be able to understand. So, tell me I'm wrong. No problem. But understand what I'm saying first and then tell me I'm wrong in language I can understand.
Alternatively, I'm not going to stop telling the truth just because someone finds it insulting. I've been insulted by the truth as well. Sometimes it hurts.
Jennifer Big ‘donors’ recently have been flocking to Trump. Thiel and Musk come immediately to mind.
Trump is attractive to them in part because of his promise of lower taxes for fat cats and corporations.
The big donor hold up of large pledges to the Biden campaign is quite distinct. These folks support what the Biden administration has accomplished and seek to support ‘Biden principles’ in government.
Their concern is that Biden is no longer in top form to be president of the United States for another four years and that his physical and mental weaknesses render him a likely loser in November.
They, like me, believe that a younger presidential team has a greater chance of obtaining a Democratic House and effectively countering Trump’s 2025 cult authoritarianism.
In a horse race, when an old mare has to be scratched, it is vexing immediately to identify a replacement. That’s where we are—-so get ready to put on your race paraphernalia and urge our choice to the finish line.
Keith, I always find your comments informative and well thought out. Respectfully, I disagree with you on this one, and I think this clip explains the whys better than I can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPRxuOWkr1E&t=6s
Miselle I also find your comments informative. I would delight to find that President Biden has his full facilities to wage a vigorous presidential campaign, win against Trump on November 5th, and then commence serving a second term.
HOWEVER, this is not how I assess the evidence. I believe that we have been gaslighted by a White House cover up regarding President Biden’s physical and mental condition in 2024. In retrospect, the WSJ article on this in early June was accurate.
I have tremendous admiration for President Biden. At 90 I have been obliged to accept that physically I am sharply limited in what I can do for an extended period. (I like to believe that I am still mentally sharp).
My long-term memory seems excellent. (I recently completed 43 stories for Storyworth on aspects of my life). My short-term memory is dreadful. I can’t remember what I did yesterday and with whom I spoke. Also, my inability to recall names of current friends is distressing.
Compared to present-day Biden, Trump, and what he represents, is a disaster for the United States. HOWEVER, the ‘age factor’, as applied to Biden, could result in a near landslide for Trump and his sycophants in November.
This would not be a contest on issues. Trump would simply have to show videos of the June 27th debate and similar incidents.
In my view, the Democrats have a potentially winning campaign based on the democratic soul of America vs. Trump cult authoritarianism. I believe that a younger presidential team has a much greater chance of blunting Trumpism and, at a minimum, getting a Democratic House in November.
I acknowledge, at this moment, that this is a difficult time for those who support what the Biden administration has accomplished and what Project 2025 portends.
I continue to respect your opinions and hope that you do likewise with mine.
Be careful about saying that Rupert’s WSJ is accurate on anything. Rupert may be older than you are, but his evil has not lessened one iota.
JD I only referred to the WSJ article AFTER its reporting was revealed accurate from multiple sources. The only Murdoch that I consider reasonable credible is the British mystery MURDOCH MURDERS, and that is only so so.
Thought Murdoch Mysteries was Canadian. God forbids I watch anything that has had Rupert’s paws on it. I remember being so distressed when he bought WSJ, so many chips in the fabric of our society.
Keith, anyone over 80 will experience mild lapses in memory. However, we are judging Biden without pointing out an important distinction. Are we electing a campaign manager or a President? He is very well qualified to govern. He is not the best campaigner, although, I must point out he is doing an outstanding job campaigning when he has an audience to motivate him. That debate was not good, but are we going to throw away all the times he's been outstanding? The polls are refuted by Simon Rosenberg and 538. I believe these polls are much more accurate than the gossip rag, that Robert Hubbell likes to refer to the NYT. Hopefully, the voters will see the difference. The polls say this is a very competitive race. Biden's debate did not change that, but the coverage and comments by democratic leadership can change that. We need to support the hundreds of thousands of workers in the field and not demoralize them. We must unite behind Biden, who has the best chance of winning.
Eadie The current Democratic situation is unprecedented in American political history. You believe that Biden has the best chance of winning in November. I do not.
We are both rational individuals. Were the 74,000,000 who voted for Trump in 2020 rational? It’s a horse race where one rider may not yet have been selected. What’s at stake is the soul of America.
Keith, I'd like to offer a slight correction. 74 million voted for Biden. 70 million voted for tRump. tRump received that many votes because there was wholesale treason going on, IMO. The Russians were in on the fix in 2016 and 2020. Hopefully, democrats will not accept the results of the upcoming election, if there is proof of fraud. Mueller and Barr warned us.
https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/03/our-trump-reporting-upsets-some-readers-but-there-arent-two-sides-to-facts-letter-from-the-editor.html
I do, Keith. And it is precisely because your comments are well thought out and articulated that I get offended with people who display ageism. It's also because of your lifelong experiences and knowledge base that I value your opinions.
I think Trump "messed up" our foreign policies so badly that I am struggling to find someone who brings Biden's experience to the table. Not just political relationships between two countries, but looking far ahead about how globally we will address climate change together. (ok, perhaps not that far).
From what I've read so far, those who might be up to the job don't appear to want the job. If we have an open convention, I'm not seeing a Lincoln emerge from it.
BTW, before the primaries in 2020, Buttigieg was my top choice, but I realized that much of America would not vote for a gay man.
Any replacement will cause chaos, and if Kamala is not the choice, we will lose the black vote as we should!
I wrote to the president on X today to remember FDR and Konrad Adenauer and to please stick with US and Kamala (or maybe it was Kamala and US). Either way he can meet people and she can make the big campaign speeches and he can do the smaller ones and the “debate” if there is one.
This “race” is very winnable if the Dem pols would just recognize that in all likelihood their polls are all Russia-tainted and think of voters and their country instead of their donors (who might just decide to fall in line—surely some of them are moral beings(?)).
That's what Citizens United gave us.
As soon as the Convention is held and Biden remains the nominee, donors will be there for him.
As one who lived with a husband whose early stage if small errors and forgetting turned to anger and some violence and, finally, total darkness. I’m not as concerned about the NOW as the Biden (who I have supported and cheered on until now) of 2026. It’s not a pretty picture.
I can't say I know how you feel because I haven't lived your life. But I do know that bad things happen to good people, that you and your husband were victims of something beyond what you or our health care system can control, and I understand why that, for you, raises a concern about Biden. But think about the fact that the best way to prevent what you're describing—anger, violence, and total darkness inside the Oval Office—is to vote, and vote Democratic. If that means voting for Joe Biden, and your worst fears come true, he will resign the office, or he will otherwise be removed, and then a vice president with character and competence will take his place. You can't say that about a candidate whose platform is literally anger, violence, and total darkness.
I am not qualified to assess someone's mental health, but I trust people that are until I have a reason to believe they're incompetent. The Whitehouse has a neurologist who does not have a concern about Biden mental health. Maybe he's biased, but that's pure speculation, and until someone gives me real evidence that would lead someone to believe his assessment was incompetent, that's good enough for me.
Have you watched Lawrence O'Donnell's "on what they don’t tell you about the Dump Biden fantasy" YouTube video? If not, my suggestion is to look it up and watch it all the way to the end.
James,
Yes on all you have written