Haley waited too long to go in for the kill, and that just shows she isn't the right material. She's going to pander to Trump's base who believe his obvious lies. They will vote for Trump. These clowns don't have the first idea about strategy or commanding power or assessing the electorate.
The kill-shot should've been to point out that he's a loser who lost the election... but they can't get his base if they do that because his base doesn't think he lost.
Thanks for the clarification, I had been under the impression that a military school was supposed to prepare you for the military, not try to 'reform' you for the public.
Now I know even more about a man I objectively dislike. I don't know how I feel about that.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
This could be weaponized as a tool of discrimination to keep minority groups or the impoverished out of office by constructing purposefully confusing questions. Just like the Jim Crow Era laws requiring people pass literacy tests to vote.
This makes sense when it comes to voting restrictions. I'd say anyone seeking office in the U.S. should be able to speak fluent English (as that's the language their job will be conducted in) and be able to pass an aptitude test.
This test should be taken alone, in public view, and on camera, probably only after winning an election and failure means the runner up gets the position assuming they can pass the test.
It has to be before even filing to run for office if we bother with such a thing. I'm skeptical of the idea as a whole, but doing it after the election would cause a crisis of faith and legitimacy in the government. Not only are you depriving voters of the chance to learn the mental fortitude of candidates before they cast their vote, but you're also invalidating their votes after the election.
You might be right, I'm skeptical as well that anything like this could actually be accomplished while minimizing corruption. There would be a different set of problems if done before the election.
pretty sure the last century of American politics has borne out that any statutes related to politicking that could be weaponized HAVE BEEN. nice try tho!
I get the problem, but I don't think it's really applicable. Voting is a basic right of every citizen of the country. Presidency is not for everyone. You wouldn't want a translator who doesn't know the languages they're supposed to translate? Why would you accept a president who is, let's say mentally challenged?
I could understand objecting to specifics, like why should mental aptitude get tested, but I don't understand being against the whole idea. IMO presidency is like a job and like most jobs there are specific requirements that a person needs to meet to be fit for that job. I don't think it's unreasonable to have certain expectations of people who are running for president.
Wow. I never thought about this. I doubt there will be a time anytime soon where I'd be ok voting for a president who isn't fluent in english. I'd almost be ok with a grammar test including diagramming sentences from the Constitution.
But since I'm a liberal I'd accept the test also being done in a relevant First Nation's language.
I mean... Trump did take a mental fitness test, and failed so miserably he genuinely thought he had passed it. Person-woman-man-camera-tv, anyone? And that was years ago, he's certainly lost even more of his faculties since then.
“The President in particular is very much a figurehead — he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had — he has already spent two of his ten presidential years in prison for fraud.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
One of my favorite books, but depressing people were pointing shit out 50 years ago and society at large is still ignoring it today.
It's obvious from this excerpt that Adams was mostly talking about British Prime Ministers, who are elected by the government and do not wield much (if any) power beyond that of being a figurehead. Of perhaps the Royalty, who aren't elected but hold even less power and are even more of a distraction.
The US president, by contrast, is not elected by the government and has a shit-ton of power, and increasingly so as the US congress is less and less able to govern due to Republican infighting. The US president can start and win a foreign war in less time than it takes congress to even form an opinion on the matter.
Zaphod spent two years in prison for fraud, meanwhile the US president is protected by more military firepower than literal nukes and has a chain of succession longer than most Kings because the US government literally cannot function without a President.
Adams was mostly talking about British Prime Ministers, who are elected by the government and do not wield much (if any) power beyond that of being a figurehead
I'm not British so I might be off-base, but my understanding is that like other European parliamentary monarchies, the PM is the effective head-of-state but their title rests entirely on the good graces of the MPs who can (and often do) replace the PM.
Furthermore the Executive branch of government isn't particularly powerful, unlike the US. Maybe I'm fundamentally misunderstanding things but I don't often hear about a British PM spending billions or starting wars without parliamentary involvement, which US presidents regularly do even if they don't enjoy a majority in Congress (which is not a situation that British PMs can find themselves in by definition).
Of course the UK has the problem of FPTP voting which leads to (quasi) bipartism which means the PM has a rather symbiotic relationship with over half of parliament, but it's still a very different dynamic.
The King would be the figurehead you're thinking of. The PM may seem at the behest of his MPs (or the MPs of parliament in general), but, as we saw with Boris (fucking) Johnson and David (oink) Cameron, they can whip MPs, expel them if they defy the whip, prorogue parliament, call referenda, and many other acts which allow them to do as they wish if they wield their power in the 'right' way. There are things which the PM can do outside of parliament, as with any leader of a country; this includes starting wars, appointing members of the cabinet (and other branches).
No, that's the monarch (where it still exists) or the president in parliamentary democracies (not presidential democracies).
The PM is in fact the leader of government and relies on the good graces of the governing party or parties, not unlike the US president candidate effectively needs to unite his party behind him.
The difference is mostly the ability to get removed/replaced hy his party but usually no term limits, where presidents are term-limited and there are explicit regulations how the parliament can remove them (something that is already inhently given in parliamental systems where the government leader is selected via parliamental majority in the first place).
I think you brush over a detail too fast. The US president needs to unite his party... until the last ballot is cast. That very instant, this stops being true for four years. Combined with a powerful executive that keeps the president very powerful even without legislative support.
Of course by definition any democratic system has checks and balances and ultimately ends up being representative of the will people in some way, but my point is that British PMs are a lot closer to being "harmless distractions" such as Zaphod than US presidents (also Douglas Adams was English).
My favorite part about all this is both sides just kind of ignoring that their candidate can't string together a coherent sentence, gets confused a lot, and mistakes people for others all the time as if those aren't signs of cognitive decline.
Cheers. Thank you for doing your part to ensure this never changes.
I'm not being pedantic nor using straw men. You are, however, being dismissive and reductive (and dense). I am simply observing, as a consumer of media, that, no, in fact, everyone is talking about their fucking ages. Your statement of "... both sides just kind of ignoring..." is false.
Here's an excerpt from the very beginning of Biden's speech two weeks ago:
In the winter of 1777, it was harsh and cold as the Continental Army marched to Valley Forge. General George Washington knew he faced the most daunting of tasks: to fight and win a war against the most powerful empire that existed in the world at the time.
His mission was clear. Liberty, not conquest. Freedom, not domination. National independence, not individual glory.
America made a vow. Never again would we bow down to a king.
And here's an except from Trump's speech from his most recent rally just a few days ago:
By the way, they never report the crowd on January 6. You know, Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley … did you know they destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, deleted and destroyed all of it? All of it, because of lots of things, like Nikki Haley is in charge of security, we offered her 10,000 people, soldiers, national guards, whatever they want. They turned it down.
Biden is old, just like Trump. Nobody denies that. But surely you aren't trying to "both sides" this one by equating the two mentally or physically, right?
In the winter of 1777, it was harsh and cold as the Continental Army marched to Valley Forge. General George Washington knew he faced the most daunting of tasks: to fight and win a war against the most powerful empire that existed in the world at the time.
Wtf, is this gibberish even English?? /s
Sure feels like astroturfing going on around the campaign with all the people making completely bullshit claims like "both sides can't string words together". But maybe far more people talk out their asses than I realized lol.
In 2020, his campaign had to stop scheduling evening events with Buden because he would start sundowning. He's an 80 year old man who is clearly starting to show signs of his age.
I agree with you that he's showing signs of his age, but isn't it possible he simply gets tired by 8PM, and since hes the boss, he can simply say "Dont schedule me for late nights thst arent necessary"?
There's a whole lot of daylight between that and "sundowning".
He was a favorite in the 1988 presidential primary because he was such a a great public speaker...
He got over his stutter when he was a child, and a stutter doesn't make someone say something completely different than what they meant to. Hell, he wasn't even doing it while Obama's VP, and he was in his 70s then.
Stop pretending he just has a stutter, he's 80 years old and he gets confused sometimes. It'll happen to all of us if we're lucky to live that long.
That doesn't mean he's still fit to be presidet, and he sure as shit isn't the best option for a Dem candidate even if he is mentally fit for office.
He was a favorite in the 1988 presidential primary because he was such a a great public speaker
Were you alive back then? As I remember it, he was a perennial also-ran because he couldn't help but stay stupid shit now and then. It's as if the word "Gaffe" in politics was invented to describe stupid things Joe Biden said. And saying stuff like that stopped campaigns cold back then. (remember when Howard Dean's campaign got killed over screaming the wrong way?)
But then Trump happened, and all of a sudden saying stupid shit all the time was no longer a liability.
I was alive and eligible to vote in 88 but I was a dumb kid that voted but didn't pay attention to the primaries so I don't remember him at all.
And he wasn't a "great public speaker" in that he was known for saying dumb shit as you say. (If anything gaffe was a term that applied earlier to Dan Quayle, former VP).
I don't recall for sure if the stutter was present then or to what degree.
I also don't see a lot of evidence that he is mentally unfit (for his age) as far as I am aware.
I also don't see a lot of evidence that he is mentally unfit (for his age) as far as I am aware.
Curious, have you even heard of his gaffes and other funny stuff (Corn Pop, pony soldier, trueananashabadapressure, falling, not knowing where to go after a speech)? There are so many funny moments from his speeches. People put together "best of" compilations on every video site. They don't get reported on CNN and stuff, you do have to look for them.
The mental fitness stuff is exaggerated for the most part, but he does lose track of his line of thinking when speaking off the cuff, without a teleprompter. He will start reciting a story he's told 1000x, then he just sighs and says, "anyways..."
I would say, as with Trump, to go to as original of a source as you can. Watch an hour long campaign really or whatever to hear the whole speech in context. Don't just read a headline or synopsis from the media.
Were you alive back then? As I remember it, he was a perennial also-ran because he couldn’t help but stay stupid shit now and then
Actually, yeah.
But why does that matter? Sure, Biden is old, but his first presidential.primary isn't ancient history, we don't have to have actually seen it to know about it.
Biden was initially considered one of the potentially strongest candidates as campaigning began in 1987.[6] This was because of his image as a political moderate, his speaking ability on the stump (rated second only to that of Jesse Jackson), his appeal to Baby Boomers, his high-profile position as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, looming for the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, and his fundraising appeal—his $1.7 million raised in the first quarter of 1987 was more than any other candidate.[7][8] By the end of April he had raised $2 million, using not just contributions from Delaware but also establishing a base of support among young professionals and Jewish voters in a number of urban- and suburban-oriented states.[9] He had no campaign debt, and Fortune magazine termed his "most impressive start" a "surprise".[9]
The only speaking difficulty Biden has had up till the last decade, has been when media press him on a challenge, he gets pissed and starts insulting them. The deathblow to the 88 campaign was when his speech plagiarism lead to reporters finding out he cheated in school and lied about being active in the civil rights movement.
He might have survived that, but he started insulting reporters when they asked. A pissed off presidential candidate yelling about how much better he is than the worker man sells a lot of newspapers and it's a vicious cycle that's hard to get out
He was still doing it last campaign, he'll do it next time.
He was still doing it last campaign, he'll do it next time.
No, he won't do it this time because he isn't going to campaign with the public. The instances he got angry with the public were pretty early in the primaries mostly. They won't let that happen this time. It will be even smaller audiences than last run (heavily vetted people) or zoom speeches from the basement.
