It’s not about “it’s their turn,” it’s that if she isn’t fit to be president then why is she fit to be vice president? Skipping over her creates even more messaging issues and such.
Unfortunately the presidential election is largely a popularity contest. Optics are incredibly important. And the optics on just kind of pretending she’s not there are terrible.
If the person you’re talking to says you’re defending predators, and the mods remove your comment for defending predators, then you should stop for a second ask yourself, “Self, am I defending predators?”
How about you screenshot this conversation and send it to five friends and ask their opinion? If I were a betting man I would say you had a flash of a thought that said “this is a bad idea.“ You should explore that feeling.
Or conversely, send it to them and see what happens.
Useful enough for you? Later dude. I’m just going to block and move on. I don’t want to read anymore comments from someone who tries to introduce nuance questioning whether or not it’s OK for middle-aged adults to hit on high schoolers.
Yeah if we had somebody who was a consensus candidate sort of waiting in the wings, I would push harder. But we don’t. And as the article says, leapfrogging over Harris would be a terrible look.
Unlike Trump he actually generally surrounds himself with competent people. Trump’s lackeys want to dismantle the entire government apparatus and fire everybody day 1. The chaos and issues that would ensue are far worse than Biden being foggy some days surrounded (largely) by capable, effective government officials who actually know what they’re doing.
No because every conservative either doesn’t know about it or pretends it isn’t as bad as it is, which they rationalize by making sure not to look at it too closely.
Do you think a 42 year old should flirt with a high schooler? I feel like my stance has been pretty clear since the first comment.
Don’t bother responding this is truly insane and I am not continuing this conversation.
You’re moving the goalposts.
I never said the DNC wasn’t corrupt or putting their thumb on the scale against Bernie. I am saying that for the head of a transparency first organization, he was particularly choosy except when it fell in line with his politics.
When your explicit goal is to expose corruption and malfeasance by governments and politicians you’re supposed to do it across-the-board, not just based on your personal whims and preferences.
Read the article it is right there. That is concrete proof. It announces their engagement and explicitly says where they met. I don’t understand how this is ambiguous to you.
His group existed to be transparent against all powers. He ran the group and suppressed stuff that didn’t agree with his politics. That’s not a transparency-first organization. That’s not speaking truth to power.
Russia is more complicated than that and you know it dude.
This is pretty heavily slanted in his favor dude. You’re leaving out the part where he picks and chooses what information to release based on his politics, how he had his own state sponsored show in Russia after he fled there, how he never released documents related to the Republican Party, etc. He ran an organization that’s explicit purpose was transparency, not “only being transparent when it fits my politics.“ There are also a lot of questions about how he (mis)handled some of that classified data and potentially put a lot of people in jeopardy.
US absolutely went overboard in how they went after him. It was shameful. But I think he did some good and some bad and you need to acknowledge a little more of the bad here. People try to make him out to be a saint or a super villain, when the simple reality is he fell somewhere in between at different times. We also can’t overlook the fact that he played a significant role in Trump winning the presidency, which a lot of people are still upset about. (Please people do not write a 10 paragraph essay about how terrible Clinton’s campaign was. That is also true. Two things can be true.)
I’m assuming you mean morals.
That’s about as far as I’m willing to take this conversation. Advocating for cultural relativism to defend a 42-year-old dating a highschooler and then calling me bigoted for not accepting it…I mean that has to be the bravest take I’ve seen in a long time. Indefensible, but brave.
By the way, I am an American and this guy lives in my society and culture. Please don’t be an intolerant bigot - apparently that falls under your definition, which is bizarre.
smashes in your door
Ȩ̸̲̝̘͙͈́͑̌̿̎̑̉̃̈́͝a̷̢͚̝̖͔̭͇͍̙̥̝̮̋͜ͅͅt̴͉̀̄́͒̈́́̍͊̈̑̀͐ ̵͉͆̆̏͘̕ỡ̴̧͓̃̓̀̉̓̅̚f̸̨̛͍̗̯̲̪̼̪̖̗̖̊̀͐̾̈͜͝ͅͅ ̶̢̰̫̜̣͎̮̳̫̱͉̓͌̽̎ḿ̵̨̡̡̪̙̯̫̘̙̰̲̭̲̯̞̊̈́̈̐̀̕ẙ̷̛̪̮͙̫̞̪̯̆͗̇̏͛͛͗͐́̕̕̕͝ ̷̢̳͕̬͓̱̑f̸̧̞̯̯͇̩͓̙̜̼̳̝̗̗̒͑̈͗̑͛̽́͗̈́̉l̴̨͍̉͊͋̃͂͛̈̓͝ë̵̢̟̥̺̻͈͚͉̪́̍͜ṣ̴͚̣͓̐̒̑̓̓̽̓͝h̶͐̕͜ ̴̢̗͓̦̤͔̜͈̯͉̯̖͋̔ç̸̛̱̭̓̈́̽̇͂̉̎̍͋̈̔́̚͝h̶̡͉̠̰̻̬̞̼͔̝̲̭̞͎͂̅̾̒̈́̉͒́͘͜͠į̵̛̝̬̤̼͂̿̒̏̿̀̅̿̾̋̾̎͘ḻ̴̖̰̺͎̑̄̒͋́̆̓͒͋̍̔d̸̡͚̦̯̪͍̩͚͚̦͕͙͗̓͒́̈́̇̍͒̒̾͜͠͝ͅr̴̟̀̀̇̔̈́͗̂̉̒͗̑̆͠͝͝e̵͎̥͍̮͈̲͖̟̊̿͝ṅ̴̨̛̝̖̬̜͙̿͐͂̐͊̈́͝͠
*panicked screams
b̷̡̈́͑͗͝e̶̛̼ ̸̺̻̻̖͚̥͇̋́́n̴̜̬̘̄̋͛̃̇͌́̐̒o̵͚͕̘͛͆̏͜t̸̡̢̲͔̭͔̤͕̘̪̦̏͋̅̆͒̒̍̒̿̑͝͝ ̷̹͍̦̜̭̜̜̳̦͛̄͗͛̀̅͘ặ̵̹̗̟̩̀̄̎̿͆͑͋f̶̤͎͓̯̯͈̤͆́͋͘ͅr̴͈̝̮̣͌̈́̓͋a̸̬͖̺̩̞̎́́͗͊̌̈́̀̾ͅį̶̛͍͖͎͉̞̜̰̭̪͑̓͂̆͆͆͜͝ͅd̸̳͙͇͉̀͌͋̽͂́͆̓
One commentor expressed skepticism with no proof and then a person responded to them with an article about this couple’s engagement that also tells the story about how they met at an FFA event. So yes, there is pretty concrete evidence this is real.
i’m not sure how much context I need to decide it is inappropriate for 42 year-old to hit on a high schooler whether she is 18 or not.
I guess I see your point but I also watched Fox News/Christians get up in arms (years ago) when a seasoned religious scholar (Reza Aslan) wrote a text on Jesus because he was not Christian. Ultimately it’s how much the individual author knows, not the group they associate with, that determines if somebody can write with authority on a subject.
Anybody can write about Richard Dawkins in any context so long as they actually know what they’re talking about. Hell Playboy was a major literary and political/social thought magazine for decades.
The point is that Dawkins is incredibly critical of other religions to the point of bordering on xenophobia, while he gives Christianity a lot of free passes aside from the occasional flippant quip or jab because of what is probably a subconscious (or at least not quite fully conscious) association with whiteness.
Basically, he’s an atheist who only seems to particularly dislike religions that he doesn’t culturally relate to. In particular islam.