I don’t click blind on videos. Is it hilarious or informative?
I think you guys are both reading that link the way you want to. And that is the fault of the article, which is written, in part, as if Biden is seriously considering and in part as if Biden is telegraphing that he isn’t. Depending on which you focus on, you can make it out to be anything. Kinda like the Bible. 
It’s also a symptom of the Democratic campaign being so boring that reporters are writing about anything that can possibly be construed as relevant.
PS: I assume that link is to Dumb and Dumber.
But I don’t really think Biden is seriously considering it. Like many, I think he’d only jump onboard in the event of a Clinton collapse. That’s why he wasn’t clear. I mean seriously, what does he gain by being ambiguous unless he’s keeping the option open?
He can extract political favors and influence the public debate by being a threat. If he actually runs and he may be seen not to be a threat at all.
Yeah that occurred to me but that still means he didn’t just give a polite “no”.
For someone who’s been near the top for so long, and tried to win it before, giving up on a lifetime dream at the same time he’s grieving for his beloved son may be just too much at once. He made it clear *enough *on that DNC call that he doesn’t feel up to it. Combine that with the complete lack of tangible efforts he’s made, and the late timing, that *is *a No.
Biden’s not running and he’s not gonna run either.
So if Hillary gets hit by a bus tomorrow, you are absolutely positive he’ll leave it to Sanders or one of the no names?
Your concession is noted.
Uh, what? I conceded nothing and I guess I have a pretty good read on your abilities to know what people are *really * saying.
I liked James Carville’s line on the TV last night, to the effect that running for President has a very high rate of recidivism.
For presidential fever, the only cure is embalming fluid.
But wait a minute. That has the hint of an implication that presidential candidates are crim… I see what he did there.
I think ‘find’ is the operative word here. I’m sure Republicans have already searched in the obvious place - the list of the 16 other candidates - and come up empty. Where else should they look? Bill Kristol apparently was so desperate that he suggested Scalia should run. (Scalia turns 80 next year. He’d certainly take the age issue off the table for his opponent, be it Biden, Sanders, Hillary, or whoever.)
Off topic, but I’m glad I’m not the only one. If the highlighted text doesn’t tell me where a link will take me, I hover over it. If all I see is that it’s YouTube, that’s not anywhere near specific enough to bother with.
Well, I will humbly disagree and say that I think “make” was the operative word there. I don’t think Republicans even know all the candidates running well enough to dismiss them. Compare it to the 2012 campaign: the establishment conservatives coalesced around a single candidate (Romney). The non-establishment conservatives cycled through a bunch of candidates. Romney pulled out ahead because he had a consistent base of support.
In this cycle, Bush was supposed to be the establishment conservative that everyone rallied around. But, much to chagrin of the establishment, right now, no one is coalescing around an establishment candidate, but the non-establishment conservatives have coalesced around Trump. What establishment Republicans need is a candidate to coalesce around, and if they saw enough people trending towards a certain person (say, Rubio or Kasich), they’d probably be happy to jump on the bandwagon as well. If Romney offered his endorsement and fundraising help, it would go a long way towards “making” a successful anti-Trump.
I still fondly remember Mitt Romney’s performance in 2012 presidential debates.
At one moment, Mitt slowly, patiently, like to a 5 year retard, explained to President Obama that Russia is the US’ greatest geopolitical threat and President Obama, instead of listening, absorbing and thanking Mr. Romney for sharing his wisdom…laughed at Romney and mocked him.
Fast-forward a few years later, and President Obama’s pick for Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff fully endorses Romney’s point of view (as anyone with half a brain would, of course) and shits all over President Obama position.
But for that brief moment in 2012, I truly thought we might have the first competent president in 20 years (as opposed to clueless amateur, shrub-junior, and the guy who enjoyed sexually assaulting women in his spare time).
From that link:
Since the “irredentism” he cites as evidence started in 2014, it’s understandable that someone in 2012 may have reached a different conclusion.
Definitely. Someone incompetent might have reached a different conclusion, and that’s exactly why we needed Mitt Romney in 2012, and not that “someone”.
Btw, the “irredentism” started in 2008, when Russian invaded and dismembered the neighboring state of Georgia. Our current president’s brilliant response was to initiate a “reset” policy with Russia–and we all know how well that turned out.
So, Mitt Romney knew Russia was going to invade Ukraine. Doesn’t that mean he was in on it?
Bush was still President in 2008.