The Presidential Debate

[Dave Gray]

Joe Biden isn't on trial and no charges have been brought against him.  It's just right-wing hopium.

I don't think Biden is qualified to lead the free world.  That isn't my take at all.

[Spider-Dan]

He was not declared legally incompetent to stand trial but when the special council says "At trial, Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,"  it sure as hell isn't saying he is competent to stand before a jury and if he isn't capable of that why in the heck would you think he is fit to lead the free world?

Just like James Comey with Hillary's e-mails, we have another Republican official who, while acknowledging that there are no legally justifiable grounds to go further in the investigation, nevertheless feels the need to slander a Democrat on the way out.  And when Robert Hur was asked by Congress why he said Biden couldn't remember the date of his son's death when the transcript showed that he clearly did, we get mumbling and stumbling from Hur in response.

But let's suppose that you're right, CF, and Biden is not mentally fit to lead the free world.  Why should any Democrat care?  You personally voted twice for a morally bankrupt, thrice-married serial adulterer who openly brags about sexually assaulting women and has been found to have committed hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud; a convicted felon 34 times over.  Not only is he morally unfit as a person, he has went on the world stage and toadied to Putin, saying that he trusts what Putin tells him over the United States' own intelligence agencies.  Despite all that, why did you vote twice for this obviously unqualified candidate?  Well:

It's a direct reference to enjoying a candidate that isnt afraid to throw your issues in your face. In other words ... the candidate triggers you so it makes it enjoyable for me. the fact we align on political issues is irrevalent in that conversation.

So, yeah: I have no interest in your concerns about Biden's fitness.

You have already previously justified your votes for Trump as means to an end.  So if that's how politics is played, why should anyone listen to this pearl-clutching about Biden's unfitness to serve?  Biden (or "his handlers"; either way works) will nominate liberal judges, sign liberal laws, and veto conservative laws.  So based on the rules of voting that YOU use, why should any Democrat care if Biden's literally in a coma?

[Denver2]

Just like James Comey with Hillary's e-mails, we have another Republican official who, while acknowledging that there are no legally justifiable grounds to go further in the investigation, nevertheless feels the need to slander a Democrat on the way out.  And when Robert Hur was asked by Congress why he said Biden couldn't remember the date of his son's death when the transcript showed that he clearly did, we get mumbling and stumbling from Hur in response.

But let's suppose that you're right, CF, and Biden is not mentally fit to lead the free world.  Why should any Democrat care?  You personally voted twice for a morally bankrupt, thrice-married serial adulterer who openly brags about sexually assaulting women and has been found to have committed hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud; a convicted felon 34 times over.  Not only is he morally unfit as a person, he has went on the world stage and toadied to Putin, saying that he trusts what Putin tells him over the United States' own intelligence agencies.  Despite all that, why did you vote twice for this obviously unqualified candidate?  Well:
So, yeah: I have no interest in your concerns about Biden's fitness.

You have already previously justified your votes for Trump as means to an end.  So if that's how politics is played, why should anyone listen to this pearl-clutching about Biden's unfitness to serve?  Biden (or "his handlers"; either way works) will nominate liberal judges, sign liberal laws, and veto conservative laws.  So based on the rules of voting that YOU use, why should any Democrat care if Biden's literally in a coma?

Any democrat in a coma would be better than any republican in an race in any part of the country.

[Downunder Dolphan]

The thing is... and this is from an outsider looking in at your country.

There are rusted-on voters who vote for Republicans or Democrats, no matter what. Even with the most extreme events during a campaign, they will do that every time. There are some complications because of the collegiate system, but ultimately that's the baseline around which everything else happens.

There are more rusted-on Republicans than rusted-on Democrats. If anyone has another argument, I'd like to hear it. Everything I have seen over the last 50+ years supports that.

Voting is not compulsory in the USA, so if people are fed up with both parties, they can chose not to vote. Or if they are lazy, or just don't care.

By that structure, if the occasional/swinging voters stay away, the Republicans (Trump) win. The prospect of Trump being a convicted felon, a liar, a megalomaniac and a potential Dictator doesn't phase the rusted-on Republican voter one bit. They will go out and vote for him.

On the other hand, Biden needs people to give a crap about something to get off their asses and vote for him. A sizeable chunk of the Islamic Americans that voted for him last time are pissed off about what's happening in Gaza, and that's going to hurt. They are not going to vote for Trump, but that doesn't matter - what matters more is they are not going to vote at all.

People being spooked by Biden's brain melt at the debate is a lot more devastating than whatever was said by Trump (partly because that has largely been ignored by the media, also partly it's because he has a bigger base that just doesn't care). The undecided/swinging/potential non-voters are the ones swayed by this not to vote, and that's bad news for the Democrats. It's in Trump's interest that people are so disillusioned they can take the easy road out, or make a badly misjudged protest by not voting at all - and that's exactly what will happen.

[Pappy13]

Honestly, I'm just hoping that someone puts a bullet in Trump's noggin before the election...

And the President should hire the shooter as an official act and then pardon the guy.

Then we can start looking at members of the supreme court. Seems a few of them need a wake up call.

I'm being facetious, but just barely.

[Spider-Dan]

Wouldn't even need to hire him.  You can just pardon him - a textbook official act - and that official act, by definition, cannot possibly be a crime.

When Nixon said, "If the president does it, it is not illegal," he was just 50 years ahead of Republican jurisprudence.

[Dave Gray]

Those that are supporting this are only thinking about Trump.  They're not thinking 50 years in the future where we have someone who just disobeys the laws and stays in power.

[Spider-Dan]

They're not thinking 50 years in the future where we have someone who just disobeys the laws and stays in power.

Wrong.

They are actively hoping this ruling starts being put into practice next year, not 50 years from now.  A president "disobeying the law and staying in power" is not some sort of unintended consequence, it's the goal.