Sleepy is the product of much GOP work. Donny needs his own.
Drowsy Don?
Tired Trump?
Comatose comb-over?
"Don't you think Trump looks tired?"
To paraphrase for this specific situation. When the Doctor says to Alex, "Don't you think she (Harriet) looks tired." It's planting the seed in Alex to question if Harriet is fit to continue being Prime Minister, or if she is 'too tired'. These 6 words spoken to Alex, Harriet's Sr. aide, inevitably leads to Harriet's downfall
I always interpreted this as Alex never telling Harriet, but as she knows something was said, it gnaws away at her confidence until she voluntarily steps down.
I think it's both. Alex has the idea that Harriet is too tired to continue in her post, and Harriet becomes increasingly paranoid because she is constantly wondering what the Doctor said, and how it was going to end her political career. Since she's paranoid, she starts acting more and more erratically, which feeds into the 'too tired' narrative, and eventually destroys her career.
Domestic terrorist.
We don't need to give him a cute nickname, call him what he is.
Unfortunately, his base like that he's a terrorist.
The only way to get them to turn against him is to show them how weak he is.
Which is impossible because his followers don't actually care about or acknowledge reality
Tuckered out tangerine?
Tapped out tenderloin?
He’s probably a bit too grissly to be a tenderloin. Just a guess.
Snoozy Sex-offender?
Fatigued Fascist?
Hampered Hamberder
All those sound good. I'm going with Drowsy Donnie lol
Trump looks so tired, why do they keep forcing him to run?
Low energy, sad!
He looks like he could use a venti covfefe.
Or a hamberder.
Maybe they tranqed him to keep his mouth shut
Honestly the best idea a trump lawyer has had in many years.
“We’re doing to inject you with what we’re calling a ‘genius enhancement serum’; it will fortify your already throbbing genius cells and keep you sharp as a tack, ensuring your every response is virtually perfect for your defence in this trial.”
…
😴
I didn't even think of that as a possibility, but damn that seems more and more likely the more I think about it. The only way to prevent him from repeatedly shooting himself in the foot is to literally drug him into unconsciousness. I completely believe that, I've heard him talk before. Hot damn.
Don’t need to tranq him, just didn’t give him his 100mg of adderall.
Interestingly it would quite likely have the opposite effect. Adderall is fairly focused on the executive functioning areas of the brain. If you are dependent on it, and it's suddenly taken away, then you'll recoil. The Executive functions help regulate decision making and focus control. Under activity in the executive functioning leads to impulsive behaviour similar to the base symptoms of ADHD.
Take away his drugs, and he will become even more impulsive. He would likely oscillate between sleepy and rage ranting, even more than normal.
Don't you think he looks tired?
I'm cheering for the big macs
Now I am suddnely afraid what his replacement might look like...
Hes ti'ed...
Dozy Don and the Despicable Diapers.
There you go world: a new band name for someone to use.
Johnny Nappleseed.
*Donny
Donny Sad Old Sleep*
SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY! Dozy Don vs Sleepy Joe in the cage match of the century!
I read your comment and wondered what Provigil was. Modafinil. I guess I should not be surprised they were all on uppers and downers.
If there’s one thing I’m not gonna shit on Trump for, it’s letting his White House hand out pills like candy. Although it’s pretty shitty to do while still enforcing archaic drug laws
The people running your country shouldn’t be drugged out. Yeah, hypocrisy is bad.
Provigil isn’t “drugged out”?
The pills shit has been standard practice at the white house. It only got out of hand under trump.
Sustained drug abuse has negative long term effects.
You can support legalization in support of individual choice, and also condemn the personal use while in positions of (extreme) power.
I don't give a shit if my mechanic has an amphetamine habit as long as he can physically do the job required of him. I care very much if my president and his advisors are cracked out while holding the reins to this country.
“Cracked out”? It’s modafinil lol
Multiple Whitehouse staffers claimed that amphetamines like Adderall were handed out like candy, no questions asked, no prescriptions necessary, and the pharmacist is being sued for lack of record keeping IIRC.
Nice try, though.
That's the picture the media needs to start using.
Hey everybody! I know how to wake him up!
Love ya, Squid. I know we can always count on you to deliver the trombone when it's relevant. I love seeing that in here.
I do my best.
can you be held in contempt for sleeping during a trial?
You're not really required by law to 'pay attention' unless you're being asked a direct question. Though, I'm sure judges look poorly on such things.
I remember Harvey Weinstein doing the same thing before he got sent to Rikers. :)
Not if you are not required to participate in that part and not causing a disturbance in the court.
This is a jury trial, and jurors are watching. Even during selection. If you don't care enough to stay awake, it's not a good impression.
Probably wouldn't fly. This happens more than you'd think. Court room procedures aren't as riveting as tv would lead us to believe.
I've heard of jurors getting in trouble for it before, but not defendants.
jurors can get in trouble for it? it's a bodily function and they are almost volunteers. I mean I can see them getting dismissed or maybe being asked if they are ok and to please try and pay attention, but I hope you don't mean real trouble.
They are entirely responsible for determining the facts of the case. The defendant can face dramatic penalties on their decision. The cannot sleep through it.
oh. now I understand. death penalty for nodding off jurors! I won't try and get disqualified when they add that.
There are quite a few bodily functions we are expected to control in public, with real legal consequences if we can't. Falling asleep while driving, or (intentionally) dropping a deuce in the jurrybox during trial as some quick examples.
erections? peeing your pants? farting? there are no legal consequences to any I can think of. maybe if you do them intentionally, there are indirect consequences, but we aren't talking about grabbing a pillow and setting up for a nap in the jury box here. just nodding off.
edit: aha I see you made an edit with examples. no fair
Nod off while driving and let me know the police feel about it.
ur just silly. No one is asking you to drive in that situation. even then, you haven't broken the law and there are no direct consequences. if you hit someone else, there are indirect legal consequences. that wasn't totally bad though, any other examples?
Ahh, my mistake. I thought we were discussing this in good faith. I'll let you continue to be intentionally obtuse on your own now.
sorry if that was flippant but I thought you were the one who had left good faith with your answer. agreed to agree to disagree. I stand by my original point that the juror you saw that got into trouble by nodding off was being treated badly and if they were punished it's an injustice and a reason everyone should avoid jury duty. I hope it's not real. have a good day.
Maybe a stupid question but how come in a nation of 330 million people, many of them should be qualified, the people are limited to two bad choices?
Has it always been this bad in US presidential elections?
Joe Biden has led the most progressive Administration in the nation’s history, investing in social justice, environmental programs, curtailing abuses by corporations and predatory institutions, stood with workers (both on the picket line and in the halls of government), developed initiatives and instituted policies to combat racial injustice, staved off a nuclear power’s assault on a weaker neighbor, overseen the largest growth in real wages in over a half century, passed keystone legislation which committed the largest investment ever into green policies and programs while also committing the largest investment ever into revitalizing the nation’s infrastructure, put more federal judges on the bench in his first term than the last two presidents combined, weathered the highest levels of inflation in generations so well that US fared markedly better than peer nations, guided the economy through that inflationary period without the need for a Volcker Shock, expanded trans rights in every corner of the federal government, oversaw the largest reduction in childhood poverty in the nation’s history, reduced pharmaceutical prices for Medicare users by over 20% on average and brought the cost of insulin down to less than $30, and that’s just off the top of my head.
It’s trendy for the terminally online to knock Biden, but he’s gotten more done in three years than any President in recent history has in eight. I’m not ceding this ground to low-information voters like the commenters here seem to perpetually be. I’m excited to vote for the President who has achieved more leftist goals in three years than any other American elected official has over their entire career.
Bro, you need to work for the election campaign. This is far more motivating than professional ads I see elsewhere.
s it always been this bad in US presidential elections?
Nope. I've been following politics since Nixon and Biden is the best president we've had in the last 50 years.
Carter was pretty good. Got ousted from his boat by a rabbit, but he was still a decent president.
If you want to see some great Republican hypocrisy, read up on Carter and his beehives. They made a huge deal about what a national security risk him selling honey and how he needs to divest from it, but then let Diaper Don slide right in by.
The problem is the first past the post system which heavily encourages a two-party outcome. A ranked choice system would drastically improve the chances of new candidates or parties to emerge with meaningful results.
But since that hurts the current holders of power, it's pretty unlikely to be enacted anytime soon.
To be blunt, do you genuinely believe that the population of the US is capable of agreeing on better candidates?
If so, again to be blunt, how many people would it take to sway this decision, and why can't this number of people strategically ensure that their candidate is chosen?
Admittedly, I'm old enough to remember when Digg tried to make Ron Paul a thing, and when that went hilariously wrong, they shifted to Obama and made out that he was their candidate all along. I'm not saying that it's easy, but mainly trying to say that I imagine that it's actually quite difficult to get 300m people to agree on anything that isn't an incredible compromise.
Not this bad but yeah
There's actually a lot more bad choices but you never know about them because nobody cares.
Because the people don’t choose their options, just from the options chosen for them. The rich are one team, and our options are just to give us the illusion of choice and to pit us against each other as if it were left v. right and not haves v. have-nots. Notice the options are always deeply rooted in the “haves” camp…
From the outside looking in (not American, but Canada has similar problems) it looks transparently theatrical. But then I look around in Canada with that same “outsider” perspective and, yeah, it’s just as bad here. Our Premier of Ontario is a slightly less embarrassing version of Trump. Claims to be “for the people” but gives little-to-no fucks whatsoever based on his actions.
Anyway… Ready whenever others are to burn this all down…
But using his own term against him is always best.
No surprise, babies need their naps.... Treasonous shit stain.
Trial of the century so far
But Biden gets a pass? Lol
Just sayin. This comment section is absolutely hilarious
Neither "get a pass". They're geriatric deep-throaters for billionaires.
Still gonna vote for Biden, but the boomer-banker oligarchy makes it a Coke versus Pepsi battle to an extreme degree nowadays. It's all Cola, at the end of the day. With Biden, Israel is still gonna get their matzoh ball, hopefully Ukraine will get their borsch, as well. With Trump, no soup for Ukraine. But neither can do, nor want to do, or believe they should do anything that holds the powerful accountable.
The local and state-level elections are where it actually matters to me, at age 40.
Other than that, boomers gonna boom.
You're missing the point: everyone is shitting on him for the hypocrisy of it.
obviously he doesn't as insisted repeatedly and frantically by dick bags like you.
Stepped all over that last nerve you had, I see. Lol.
Are you kidding me? Everyone was shitting on Biden "sleepy Joe" remember? Including Trump himself, oh hypocrisy!
To be fair, the man is traveling constantly right now. I'd be exhausted if I were almost 80 and flying all the time.
To be fair, if you're 80 and the subject of like a dozen court cases, you probably shouldn't be running for president. If he's too tired to pay attention to his court case, maybe he should drop out of the presidential race? Clearly he's too old and low energy to run for president.
I have a hard time believing that he would drop out. Not much in it for him, and I assume that if he loses, he's gonna claim that the election was stolen again anyway to try and keep supporters interested.
If he does, though, what's the succession plan for a nominee? There has to be one, because people could get shot or have a heart attack or something. Do they just choose the second-place vote getter, Nikki Haley? There's no time to run a new primary. Does the party internally pick a new nominee?
#What if a vacancy occurs after the primaries and before or during the convention?
If the leading candidate was to drop out of the campaign after most primaries or even during the convention, individual delegates would likely decide the party’s nominee on the convention floor.
That would shine a spotlight on the normally niche question of who those actual delegates are.
There would be a messy political battle in every state over who would get to be a delegate (if the vacancy happened before many of those people were chosen) and then who they would ultimately support. Even people who did not run primary campaigns could ultimately be considered.
You can assume, for instance, that Vice President Kamala Harris would be a top contender to be on the ballot if, for some reason, Biden left the race. At the same time, given Haley’s weakness in primaries, it seems unlikely that Republicans would coalesce around her if Trump was unable to run.
On the Democratic side, there would also be another group to consider: the “superdelegates,” a group of about 700 senior party leaders and elected officials who are automatically delegates to the convention based on their position. Under normal party rules, they can’t vote on the first ballot if they could swing the nomination, but they’re free to vote on subsequent ballots.
#What if a candidate left the race after the convention?
It would take a drastic event for a candidate to leave the race in the few months between a party’s nominating convention in the summer and the general election in November.
Democrats and Republicans have slightly different methods of dealing with this possibility. You can imagine the end result would probably be that the running mate stepped up to be on the general election ballot, but that is not necessarily guaranteed.
Democrats – The Democratic National Committee is empowered to fill a vacancy on the national ticket after the convention under party rules, after the party chair consults with Democratic governors and congressional leadership.
Republicans – If a vacancy occurs on the Republican side, the Republican National Committee can either reconvene the national convention or select a new candidate itself.
#Would the running mate automatically become the nominee?
An in-depth Congressional Research Service memo also notes that if an incumbent president becomes incapacitated after winning the party’s nomination, the 25th Amendment would elevate the vice president to the presidency, but party rules would determine who rises to become the party’s nominee.
Neither party, according to CRS, requires that the presidential candidate’s running mate be elevated to the top of the ticket, but that would obviously be the most likely scenario.
#Has a candidate ever left the race after the convention?
In modern times, per CRS, the Democrat running for vice president in 1972, Sen. Thomas Eagleton, was forced to step aside after the convention after it was discovered that he was treated for mental illness (1972 was a very different time! Today, thankfully, there is not nearly the stigma attached to mental health).
The DNC actually needed to convene a meeting to affirm Sargent Shriver as Democratic nominee George McGovern’s second-choice running mate.
So probably his running mate if after the convention and probably someone else the party chooses if prior.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time
He's unfortunately not doing that either
To be fair he's far too old and mentally unfit to be trying to lead the world's largest military.
To be fair he isna terrible person who chose commit the crimes that make all that travel necessary.
His campaigjing also counts as crimes since he regularly incites violence and is clearly committing fraud with his abuse of campaign financing.
Can you point me to your comments where you call out trump for calling Biden "sleepy Joe" despite being the POTUS, when that would make anyone tired?
Hard to point out what they never said
If he didn't want to be in court all the time, maybe he shouldn't have committed all those crimes.
You're the kind of person that will never serve on a jury because you believe that if someone is arrested, they must be guilty. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the American standard.
So maybe he should dropout of the race then.
To be fair, maybe the presidency is too much for that crook and he should first deal with his trials?
Oh is he piloting or just tired from not being able to access his uppers on court days?
Congrats on the most unselfaware comment yet. Well done
Fair. I wish people on Lemmy could take a genuine comment for what it is and not over-interpret is as political support, as I am sure you don't support this person.
Why would anyone possibly think a person defending Trump supports him?! /s
Yeah this person totally isn't a rightwing nutjob, with gems like this in their comment history:
There's no correlation between the violent crime rate and firearms regulations in the US.
Calling ~50% of the population "nutjobs" isn't particularly conducive to productive political discourse. Solely using strawman and ad hominem fallacies just make you look like a partisan hack, not a serious person.
It's totally off-topic, but I stand by what I said in that other thread. If you can show me that there is a correlation that evidences decreased violent crime and increased firearms regulation, please let me know, I'm eager to read it. FTR, I get my crime stats directly from the FBI.
I consider myself to be a classical liberal, someone who believes in the liberal values that allowed our great nation to be founded in the first place. To that end, I have no compunction calling out hypocrisy whenever I see it. Do I think Trump is a good person? Hell no. But between him and Biden, I believe that Trump makes the better president. The US and the entire World were objectively better off based on the stats under Trump than they are under Biden.
It is absolutely a lie that 50% of the population supports trump or thinks guns have nothing to do with crime. I won't waste my time with a bad actor like you other than to say in regards to your request for a source about crime: see any country that made guns illegal. I'm truly tired as can be when it comes to dealing with your type. That is why I'm on Lemmy. Maybe you should consider facebook?
I'm a "bad actor" for defending both the Constitution and for expressing an opposing viewpoint? lol, ok then.
FWIF, I don't know for sure what the percentage of the US population is that supports Trump, I just know that Trump is leading Biden slightly or is toe-to-toe with Biden in almost every single poll. I also know that according to a Gallup poll a couple of years ago, 36% of polled people say they are conservative and only 25% say they are liberal, with another 37% identifying as moderate. Considering that Trump is the moderate candidate at this point (Biden has moved consistently to the far left during his presidency), I'd say that assuming ~50% of the population supports or at least would vote for Trump based solely on policy isn't the worst reasoning. https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx
I suppose providing sources for my claims is further proof I'm a "bad actor", eh?
Trump is the moderate candidate at this point (Biden has moved consistently to the far left during his presidency),
Lololol
I'm a "bad actor" for defending both the Constitution
That's rich, you fucking insurrectionist traitor
Contradicting this post is not equal to supporting Trump.
And yes, I know people are excited here because the same articles were written against Biden, that's an issue with both candidates.
I read their comment history, it seems there is a tendency to go against the leftist pack, but they seem rational enough, I bet you can find a valid source for them (I'm not going to source them myself).
I read some of your comments. I'm not really interested in discussing anything with boring contrarian who defends right wingers
I'm not interested in discussing with people who use straw man arguments so I guess we have an agreement there.
Just trying to prove to the base he's not woke.
When you're so not woke you're sleep.
Username checks out
Sleepy is the product of much GOP work. Donny needs his own.
Drowsy Don?
Tired Trump?
Comatose comb-over?
"Don't you think Trump looks tired?"
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/193743/how-did-the-doctor-take-harriet-jones-down-in-the-christmas-invasion
I always interpreted this as Alex never telling Harriet, but as she knows something was said, it gnaws away at her confidence until she voluntarily steps down.
I think it's both. Alex has the idea that Harriet is too tired to continue in her post, and Harriet becomes increasingly paranoid because she is constantly wondering what the Doctor said, and how it was going to end her political career. Since she's paranoid, she starts acting more and more erratically, which feeds into the 'too tired' narrative, and eventually destroys her career.
Domestic terrorist.
We don't need to give him a cute nickname, call him what he is.
Unfortunately, his base like that he's a terrorist.
The only way to get them to turn against him is to show them how weak he is.
Which is impossible because his followers don't actually care about or acknowledge reality
Tuckered out tangerine?
Tapped out tenderloin?
He’s probably a bit too grissly to be a tenderloin. Just a guess.
Snoozy Sex-offender?
Fatigued Fascist?
Hampered Hamberder
All those sound good. I'm going with Drowsy Donnie lol
Don Snoreleone
I'm sticking with Dementia Don.
comatose comb over 💀
Somnambulant sack of shit.
Benedict Donald
Droopy Don
Weary white supremacist?
Fatigued fascist?
Ahh, I know...pooped pussy grabber
D(on) and D(off)
Snorin' orange.
Dozy Don
Drowsy Donny! That's what we call him!
Terrible Twos Trump
Terrorist Trump
Tantrum Trump
Trump looks so tired, why do they keep forcing him to run?
Low energy, sad!
He looks like he could use a venti covfefe.
Or a hamberder.
Maybe they tranqed him to keep his mouth shut
Honestly the best idea a trump lawyer has had in many years.
“We’re doing to inject you with what we’re calling a ‘genius enhancement serum’; it will fortify your already throbbing genius cells and keep you sharp as a tack, ensuring your every response is virtually perfect for your defence in this trial.”
…
😴
I didn't even think of that as a possibility, but damn that seems more and more likely the more I think about it. The only way to prevent him from repeatedly shooting himself in the foot is to literally drug him into unconsciousness. I completely believe that, I've heard him talk before. Hot damn.
Don’t need to tranq him, just didn’t give him his 100mg of adderall.
Interestingly it would quite likely have the opposite effect. Adderall is fairly focused on the executive functioning areas of the brain. If you are dependent on it, and it's suddenly taken away, then you'll recoil. The Executive functions help regulate decision making and focus control. Under activity in the executive functioning leads to impulsive behaviour similar to the base symptoms of ADHD.
Take away his drugs, and he will become even more impulsive. He would likely oscillate between sleepy and rage ranting, even more than normal.
Don't you think he looks tired?
I'm cheering for the big macs
Now I am suddnely afraid what his replacement might look like...
Hes ti'ed...
Dozy Don and the Despicable Diapers.
There you go world: a new band name for someone to use.
Johnny Nappleseed.
*Donny
Donny Sad Old Sleep*
SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY! Dozy Don vs Sleepy Joe in the cage match of the century!
He must have mistakenly taken his Ambien instead of his Provigil.
I read your comment and wondered what Provigil was. Modafinil. I guess I should not be surprised they were all on uppers and downers.
If there’s one thing I’m not gonna shit on Trump for, it’s letting his White House hand out pills like candy. Although it’s pretty shitty to do while still enforcing archaic drug laws
The people running your country shouldn’t be drugged out. Yeah, hypocrisy is bad.
Provigil isn’t “drugged out”?
The pills shit has been standard practice at the white house. It only got out of hand under trump.
Sustained drug abuse has negative long term effects.
You can support legalization in support of individual choice, and also condemn the personal use while in positions of (extreme) power.
I don't give a shit if my mechanic has an amphetamine habit as long as he can physically do the job required of him. I care very much if my president and his advisors are cracked out while holding the reins to this country.
“Cracked out”? It’s modafinil lol
Multiple Whitehouse staffers claimed that amphetamines like Adderall were handed out like candy, no questions asked, no prescriptions necessary, and the pharmacist is being sued for lack of record keeping IIRC.
Nice try, though.
That's the picture the media needs to start using.
Hey everybody! I know how to wake him up!
Love ya, Squid. I know we can always count on you to deliver the trombone when it's relevant. I love seeing that in here.
I do my best.
can you be held in contempt for sleeping during a trial?
You're not really required by law to 'pay attention' unless you're being asked a direct question. Though, I'm sure judges look poorly on such things.
I remember Harvey Weinstein doing the same thing before he got sent to Rikers. :)
Not if you are not required to participate in that part and not causing a disturbance in the court.
This is a jury trial, and jurors are watching. Even during selection. If you don't care enough to stay awake, it's not a good impression.
Probably wouldn't fly. This happens more than you'd think. Court room procedures aren't as riveting as tv would lead us to believe.
I've heard of jurors getting in trouble for it before, but not defendants.
jurors can get in trouble for it? it's a bodily function and they are almost volunteers. I mean I can see them getting dismissed or maybe being asked if they are ok and to please try and pay attention, but I hope you don't mean real trouble.
They are entirely responsible for determining the facts of the case. The defendant can face dramatic penalties on their decision. The cannot sleep through it.
oh. now I understand. death penalty for nodding off jurors! I won't try and get disqualified when they add that.
There are quite a few bodily functions we are expected to control in public, with real legal consequences if we can't. Falling asleep while driving, or (intentionally) dropping a deuce in the jurrybox during trial as some quick examples.
erections? peeing your pants? farting? there are no legal consequences to any I can think of. maybe if you do them intentionally, there are indirect consequences, but we aren't talking about grabbing a pillow and setting up for a nap in the jury box here. just nodding off.
edit: aha I see you made an edit with examples. no fair
Nod off while driving and let me know the police feel about it.
ur just silly. No one is asking you to drive in that situation. even then, you haven't broken the law and there are no direct consequences. if you hit someone else, there are indirect legal consequences. that wasn't totally bad though, any other examples?
Ahh, my mistake. I thought we were discussing this in good faith. I'll let you continue to be intentionally obtuse on your own now.
sorry if that was flippant but I thought you were the one who had left good faith with your answer. agreed to agree to disagree. I stand by my original point that the juror you saw that got into trouble by nodding off was being treated badly and if they were punished it's an injustice and a reason everyone should avoid jury duty. I hope it's not real. have a good day.
https://archive.ph/yBD3H View freely. :)
Maybe a stupid question but how come in a nation of 330 million people, many of them should be qualified, the people are limited to two bad choices?
Has it always been this bad in US presidential elections?
Joe Biden has led the most progressive Administration in the nation’s history, investing in social justice, environmental programs, curtailing abuses by corporations and predatory institutions, stood with workers (both on the picket line and in the halls of government), developed initiatives and instituted policies to combat racial injustice, staved off a nuclear power’s assault on a weaker neighbor, overseen the largest growth in real wages in over a half century, passed keystone legislation which committed the largest investment ever into green policies and programs while also committing the largest investment ever into revitalizing the nation’s infrastructure, put more federal judges on the bench in his first term than the last two presidents combined, weathered the highest levels of inflation in generations so well that US fared markedly better than peer nations, guided the economy through that inflationary period without the need for a Volcker Shock, expanded trans rights in every corner of the federal government, oversaw the largest reduction in childhood poverty in the nation’s history, reduced pharmaceutical prices for Medicare users by over 20% on average and brought the cost of insulin down to less than $30, and that’s just off the top of my head.
It’s trendy for the terminally online to knock Biden, but he’s gotten more done in three years than any President in recent history has in eight. I’m not ceding this ground to low-information voters like the commenters here seem to perpetually be. I’m excited to vote for the President who has achieved more leftist goals in three years than any other American elected official has over their entire career.
Bro, you need to work for the election campaign. This is far more motivating than professional ads I see elsewhere.
Nope. I've been following politics since Nixon and Biden is the best president we've had in the last 50 years.
Carter was pretty good. Got ousted from his boat by a rabbit, but he was still a decent president.
If you want to see some great Republican hypocrisy, read up on Carter and his beehives. They made a huge deal about what a national security risk him selling honey and how he needs to divest from it, but then let Diaper Don slide right in by.
The problem is the first past the post system which heavily encourages a two-party outcome. A ranked choice system would drastically improve the chances of new candidates or parties to emerge with meaningful results.
But since that hurts the current holders of power, it's pretty unlikely to be enacted anytime soon.
To be blunt, do you genuinely believe that the population of the US is capable of agreeing on better candidates?
If so, again to be blunt, how many people would it take to sway this decision, and why can't this number of people strategically ensure that their candidate is chosen?
Admittedly, I'm old enough to remember when Digg tried to make Ron Paul a thing, and when that went hilariously wrong, they shifted to Obama and made out that he was their candidate all along. I'm not saying that it's easy, but mainly trying to say that I imagine that it's actually quite difficult to get 300m people to agree on anything that isn't an incredible compromise.
Not this bad but yeah
There's actually a lot more bad choices but you never know about them because nobody cares.
Because the people don’t choose their options, just from the options chosen for them. The rich are one team, and our options are just to give us the illusion of choice and to pit us against each other as if it were left v. right and not haves v. have-nots. Notice the options are always deeply rooted in the “haves” camp…
From the outside looking in (not American, but Canada has similar problems) it looks transparently theatrical. But then I look around in Canada with that same “outsider” perspective and, yeah, it’s just as bad here. Our Premier of Ontario is a slightly less embarrassing version of Trump. Claims to be “for the people” but gives little-to-no fucks whatsoever based on his actions.
Anyway… Ready whenever others are to burn this all down…
Drowsy Defunded Don was right there......
Donald Slump.
But using his own term against him is always best.
No surprise, babies need their naps.... Treasonous shit stain.
Trial of the century so far
But Biden gets a pass? Lol
Just sayin. This comment section is absolutely hilarious
Neither "get a pass". They're geriatric deep-throaters for billionaires.
Still gonna vote for Biden, but the boomer-banker oligarchy makes it a Coke versus Pepsi battle to an extreme degree nowadays. It's all Cola, at the end of the day. With Biden, Israel is still gonna get their matzoh ball, hopefully Ukraine will get their borsch, as well. With Trump, no soup for Ukraine. But neither can do, nor want to do, or believe they should do anything that holds the powerful accountable.
The local and state-level elections are where it actually matters to me, at age 40.
Other than that, boomers gonna boom.
You're missing the point: everyone is shitting on him for the hypocrisy of it.
obviously he doesn't as insisted repeatedly and frantically by dick bags like you.
Stepped all over that last nerve you had, I see. Lol.
Are you kidding me? Everyone was shitting on Biden "sleepy Joe" remember? Including Trump himself, oh hypocrisy!
To be fair, the man is traveling constantly right now. I'd be exhausted if I were almost 80 and flying all the time.
To be fair, if you're 80 and the subject of like a dozen court cases, you probably shouldn't be running for president. If he's too tired to pay attention to his court case, maybe he should drop out of the presidential race? Clearly he's too old and low energy to run for president.
I have a hard time believing that he would drop out. Not much in it for him, and I assume that if he loses, he's gonna claim that the election was stolen again anyway to try and keep supporters interested.
If he does, though, what's the succession plan for a nominee? There has to be one, because people could get shot or have a heart attack or something. Do they just choose the second-place vote getter, Nikki Haley? There's no time to run a new primary. Does the party internally pick a new nominee?
googles
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/12/politics/presidential-candidate-race-drop-what-matters/index.html
So probably his running mate if after the convention and probably someone else the party chooses if prior.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time
He's unfortunately not doing that either
To be fair he's far too old and mentally unfit to be trying to lead the world's largest military.
To be fair he isna terrible person who chose commit the crimes that make all that travel necessary.
His campaigjing also counts as crimes since he regularly incites violence and is clearly committing fraud with his abuse of campaign financing.
Can you point me to your comments where you call out trump for calling Biden "sleepy Joe" despite being the POTUS, when that would make anyone tired?
Hard to point out what they never said
If he didn't want to be in court all the time, maybe he shouldn't have committed all those crimes.
You're the kind of person that will never serve on a jury because you believe that if someone is arrested, they must be guilty. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the American standard.
So maybe he should dropout of the race then.
To be fair, maybe the presidency is too much for that crook and he should first deal with his trials?
Oh is he piloting or just tired from not being able to access his uppers on court days?
Congrats on the most unselfaware comment yet. Well done
Fair. I wish people on Lemmy could take a genuine comment for what it is and not over-interpret is as political support, as I am sure you don't support this person.
Why would anyone possibly think a person defending Trump supports him?! /s
Yeah this person totally isn't a rightwing nutjob, with gems like this in their comment history:
Calling ~50% of the population "nutjobs" isn't particularly conducive to productive political discourse. Solely using strawman and ad hominem fallacies just make you look like a partisan hack, not a serious person.
It's totally off-topic, but I stand by what I said in that other thread. If you can show me that there is a correlation that evidences decreased violent crime and increased firearms regulation, please let me know, I'm eager to read it. FTR, I get my crime stats directly from the FBI.
I consider myself to be a classical liberal, someone who believes in the liberal values that allowed our great nation to be founded in the first place. To that end, I have no compunction calling out hypocrisy whenever I see it. Do I think Trump is a good person? Hell no. But between him and Biden, I believe that Trump makes the better president. The US and the entire World were objectively better off based on the stats under Trump than they are under Biden.
It is absolutely a lie that 50% of the population supports trump or thinks guns have nothing to do with crime. I won't waste my time with a bad actor like you other than to say in regards to your request for a source about crime: see any country that made guns illegal. I'm truly tired as can be when it comes to dealing with your type. That is why I'm on Lemmy. Maybe you should consider facebook?
I'm a "bad actor" for defending both the Constitution and for expressing an opposing viewpoint? lol, ok then.
FWIF, I don't know for sure what the percentage of the US population is that supports Trump, I just know that Trump is leading Biden slightly or is toe-to-toe with Biden in almost every single poll. I also know that according to a Gallup poll a couple of years ago, 36% of polled people say they are conservative and only 25% say they are liberal, with another 37% identifying as moderate. Considering that Trump is the moderate candidate at this point (Biden has moved consistently to the far left during his presidency), I'd say that assuming ~50% of the population supports or at least would vote for Trump based solely on policy isn't the worst reasoning. https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx
I suppose providing sources for my claims is further proof I'm a "bad actor", eh?
Lololol
That's rich, you fucking insurrectionist traitor
Contradicting this post is not equal to supporting Trump. And yes, I know people are excited here because the same articles were written against Biden, that's an issue with both candidates.
I read their comment history, it seems there is a tendency to go against the leftist pack, but they seem rational enough, I bet you can find a valid source for them (I'm not going to source them myself).
I read some of your comments. I'm not really interested in discussing anything with boring contrarian who defends right wingers
I'm not interested in discussing with people who use straw man arguments so I guess we have an agreement there.
Uh oh, seems we have an Enlightened Centrist™.
The Enlightened-est