I DID respond in a coherent way.....ACCEPT the fact that we have OLD,DETERIORATING LEADERS and
NO one to replace them....also see my top post about the dire health crisis of our past leader....the inability
to accept the FACT that this country is falling behind in global leadership is becoming more and more apparent.
As a fifty something I have good and bad days. Occasionally President Biden has a good day, maybe assisted with drugs like Ritalin to keep him focused? But he also has very bad days. I am surprised they keep trotting him out like this. They probably thought he could handle an ice cream social type appearance but he stumbled again.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
homeagain wrote: I DID respond in a coherent way.....ACCEPT the fact that we have OLD,DETERIORATING LEADERS and NO one to replace them..
LOL!!! WHAT?? You had 20+ people running in that primary with only 2 dinosaurs that spent decades accomplishing NOTHING! The Democrats picked the oldest, whitest, and most incoherent old man out of the bunch. Biden was picked because he could be manipulated by the most radical leftists that would have zero chance of winning. Please dont say there is nobody to replace them when you litterally have millions of people to chose from.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
THE good,qualified candidates looked at the odds of NOT being character assassinated and the boat loads of$$$ it would require and opted out. OLD, RICH, WHITE and connected were the choices.
homeagain wrote: THE good,qualified candidates looked at the odds of NOT being character assassinated and the boat loads of$$$ it would require and opted out. OLD, RICH, WHITE and connected were the choices.
That makes no sense. Biden lost every debate against much better and much younger candidates. So either the people decided to pick the oldest white guy, or the system was rigged. Which was it?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
DID those candidate have a bottomless bounty of $$$ to draw from? Probably not, and THERE IN LIES THE PROBLEM. He who has the most money, usually wins the prize. Probably changing that perimeter would
provide a better selection of candidates to choose from.
homeagain wrote: DID those candidate have a bottomless bounty of $$$ to draw from? Probably not, and THERE IN LIES THE PROBLEM. He who has the most money, usually wins the prize. Probably changing that perimeter would
provide a better selection of candidates to choose from.
Actually after losing in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden was out of money. But somehow more came in and his opponents started dropping out. What did he agree to do the get new funding?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
