Come on. If you’re excited you’re going to say “I think he’ll be a great president!” not “Joe stands a better chance of being an effective leader”.
I know you’re Canadian, so you don’t have these kinds of problems, but down here, many of us are legit excited at the prospect of someone “being an effective leader.”
When you’re calling taxes not even as ‘leftist’ as those we had in the 1950s and programs Nixon (not exactly a pinko) was working on a ‘highly progressive leftist agenda’, it’s pretty clear that the constant stream of ‘just to the left of Republicans candidates’ that Democrats have been feeding us for decades has caused huge harm to our political system as a whole.
An effective leader who got fooled by George W Bush, who’s probably the second-least intelligent president we’ve managed to have. Seriously, how can you call yourself an effective leader if you take a deal like ‘Hey Joe, if you stop supporting the bill that puts limits on me and support the one that doesn’t, I’ll pinkie swear to still follow the limits forever and ever, honest!’? And even worse, are surprised that the other guy doesn’t follow the limits that he bargained with you to remove?
Biden according to his own story was a pretty ineffective leader 20 years ago, and its clear that his brain is even less sharp now.
Cool story bro. I’ve heard this already.
Thank you, Amy! It looks like Minnesota is going Biden.
Personally, I think I’ll listen to the viewpoint of the guy who was in the Senate and/or VP for 44 out of the last 48 years over some random internet guy who thinks that being on the bench for four years negates all that.
Biden is uniquely positioned to actually know and understand the process, players and idiosyncracies of the White House and Congress.
Right?
Let’s be real. He wasn’t fooled by Dubya, and neither was Hillary or any of the others who voted for that resolution. But he can’t say “If we had had a Democratic president, we wouldn’t have gone into that war, but since a Republican was in the Oval Office and determined to go to war, we couldn’t oppose him in the aftermath of 9/11 without risking being McGoverned into poiltical oblivion”. That’s the real truth, and holier-than-thou purists won’t like it, but I think it’s a perfectly legitimate vote and a good reason to elect Democratic presidents so we don’t get put in those awkward positions.
So you’re saying that his story of having the wool pulled over his eyes was fake, and that the people who have repeated it to me on these boards to justify his vote are just repeating a lie? That’s a pretty awful accusation. And it’s convenient how sometimes to support Biden, we’re supposed to believe one story from him, and at other times we’re supposed to ignore what he says and ‘know’ the true story.
Again, according to what Joe Biden says about himself, he was dumb enough to lose a battle of wits to George Bush when his mind was twenty years sharper.
Why can’t he say that? People keep saying it for him sometimes (and other times repeating the ‘Bush lied’ track), so why is it impossible for him to utter the words? And if that’s the case, how are people supposed to determine which of his words to believe and which to ignore?
I don’t think “I voted for the worst foreign policy decision the US has made since Vietnam and the death of half a million people because I wanted to hold on to power, and me keeping my office is clearly more important than half a million brown people” is exactly a good qualification. If his excuse for the vote is just a lie (though people on this board have argued otherwise) and the real reason is what you said, then he’s someone willing to commit mass murder to win an election, and it’s imperative to not vote for him, not just foolish.
I hear she might not stick around the Senate too long now: Vindictive Amy Klobuchar Elected Mayor Of South Bend, Indiana