Removed by mod

You’re just agreeing with me, but that makes me the bad guy for pointing it out.

The irony being that me saying be as outraged as possible is, of course, a figure of speech and not meant to be taken literally.

We’re not here to think or be reasonable, the goal is to be the most outraged.

You claimed you provided it, but did not.

None of what you provided says anything about presidential elections.

so covers a lot of the vital information you’d want

No, it covers none of the information I want. Thats my point. They use deception and leave a similar open question as the other title to get you to click, the other title just leaves an open question to get you to click the link (although, to be fair, it would be a lie because I would not be surprised by it. Lol).

Both your title and the title that was use require you to click on the link in order to have any idea of what happened. The difference is that the real title misrepresents what actually happened to get you to do so. I would still rank it as worse.

So, you don’t understand that the POTUS election is not the entirety of the us political system? I’m not sure what I’m supposed to say here, you quoted two very obviously different things.

The headline implies a lot of people were laughing at her, at least that was my first impression. When it was really just one guy who gave a brief chuckle at her question. Considering the “laughing” is such a tiny part of what happened, I feel the opposite and it would be tough to make it more clickbait-y.

Your quote talks about how third parties brought about some changes. At no point did I say third parties have no place in us politics, nor did I say never vote for third parties.

So, it didn’t solve the problem? I’m not sure what you’re driving at here. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be multiple parties, I’m saying the vote during our presidential election, under our current system, is a strategic one, not one to throw away on a third party.

Except we have 2 parties still. How did voting third party in the past solve that problem? Proof is in the pudding.

Not voting or voting third party for POTUS does nothing. It’s just pure vanity. Do what you want, I’m not really trying to change your mind, but it’s a virtually pointless move that doesnt make any sense under the current way we do things.

You didn’t just call out OP’s bad information garbage, you implied, whether intentionally or not, that there was no issue of what the governor was doing.

In my own defense, I did not imply it, you inferred it probably because you interpreted any defense of him, despite being couched in trepidation of defending him at all, as a defense of the trip.

I can see why explicitly not saying it I left this open to interpretation, so I don’t consider myself blameless, but I certainly did not imply it.

Whether he deserves “every drop of outrage” is subjective, so hard to argue with you on that.

However, you’re arguing here a case of priorities, one I agree with.

But the top level poster is claiming that he’s going on vacation instead. Which is not reasonable. It’s basically lying. Which is my point: it’s not about being reasonable (in your case pointing out misplaced priorities), it’s about being as outraged as possible (spinning it into a vacation).

You seem like a reasonable person, so don’t defend this garbage.

It’s not a vacation. He’s there on a planned political trip.

I hate the defend the guy because he’s an idiot, but this outrage as if this is like when cruz fles the state on an actual vacation to avoid a situation he helped cause doesn’t make any sense.

But then again, it’s not about making sense, it’s about being the most outraged over this.

This is a weird position for a bunch of reasons.

First, you aren’t really challenging my claim. You’re just kind of stating it as a given that Biden is unable to serve and thus subject to the 25th amendment. My point is that there is no good evidence of this; you’re basing that just on a bad debate performance.

Second, there is no reason to assume that the next congress won’t be closely split. That being said, the dems will have no power to remove the POTUS via the 25th amendment. Hell, even if by some miracle they do get some massive majority in both houses, the VP still has to be on board for it. It’s not like the Dems can just invoke the 25th amendment on their own. That would require Republicans to do something. . .and if it is simply that “Trump goes crazy” well, good fucking luck getting 2/3rds of the house and senate to oust him. Never going to happen, the cult is just too entrenched and his lackies too beholden or afraid of the consequences of going against him.

1. I’m a proof is in the pudding type of guy, and it’s been smooth sailing. You’re conjecture that he can’t lead us during a crisis is just that: conjecture.
2. Again, I’m a proof is in the pudding guy. Whether he is actually running the administration is inconsequential: it’s doing well. So if he isn’t running it, then all the less reason to worry about re-electing him because if he is already hands off, then that’s proof his cognitive ability doesn’t really matter.

I was specifically told that i could vote my opinion on the matter after the presidential election, but not a second before.

Wow, really got that talking point and sticking to it.

Biden clearly isn’t up for the job anymore.

He’s currently in the job and things are going reasonably well. Do I wish he was more left wing? Yes, but he’s been more left than any POTUS during my lifetime. Do I wish he would stop supporting Israel? Absolutely, this is a huge mark against him.

Maybe we can argue that we can see the writing on the wall and we think he won’t be able to do the job, but to argue that he clearly can’t requires ignoring the reality.

Trump, on the other hand, we had 4 years of and that was a disaster that ended with people attacking the capitol. So if we can say we know any of them is not up for the job, it’s clear which way that should point.