When you do one job for decades upon decades and are used to making that speech 'running for Senate' that is not a killer or even big gaffe to make. It does not show signs of dementia or even aging (senior moment).

This is a big gaffe to make which looks like both aging and dementia and Trump does this all the time.

I was thinking about a related question earlier today: Which party benefits the most from widespread public hatred of politicians? My gut tells me that Republicans benefit more than Democrats.

The popular narrative is that guys like McConnell aggressively erode norms because they know that Democrats lack the spine to respond in kind. That may be part of it. But I wonder if engendering hatred for all politicians is more of a feature than a bug from McConnell's perspective.

yeah not only are they the party of the libertarian cynic, but they legit believe in smaller government, which is less for a politician to do

Seems to me the person who's still whining about the Iowa caucus two weeks before the general election is the triggered one.

can you imagine if great American Jim Clyburn hadn't endorsed Joe, and we got a contested convention?

instead of the shitlibs basically just laughing at holdouts like brie brie because they make up a very small % of the voters, Biden would have a big problem on his hands.

this is even taking into consideration that Bernie was a weaker candidate than in 2016, and quantitatively never deserved the nomination.

the pundits were desperate to construct a narrative of lack of enthusiasm for Joe and DNC rigging. they want to make everything a horse race.

a giant mess avoided. possibly the republic saved.

Thank You Jim Clyburn!

But again, why not just shut up if you think your opponent fundamentally doesn't know what office he's running for? The point is Trump doesn't think Biden doesn't know that stuff, hence his awful, aggressive debate performance.

Oh, I think it's no question that republicans benefit. They have a far greater percentage of habitual voters who simply will vote every election no matter how much they hate the candidates. And fundamentally, republicans don't want the government to provide social services and the easy way to get people to go along with that is to convince everybody that politicians can't be trusted no matter who is in control.

This is my instinct as well. I am little amazed at how many Democrat voters subscribe to exactly the view that the Mitch McConnells of the world are implicitly promoting.

Bump for bundy, who actively avoids reading posts that might call into question his Dear Leader's mental fitness

I'm sympathetic to Martin Gurri's analysis of this as a global phenomenon of which the US is but a local instance. I'm skeptical that McConnell is doing more than desperately trying to ride the tiger of reactionary populism, but it's too soon to know which party benefits electorally from it the most. For instance, Trump, a product of negative polarization, might end up costing the GOP a winnable election through his ineptitude in responding to COVID.

I mean, in any case braindead Biden >>> braindead Trump >>>>>> Trump holds imo.

I didn't bring up the Iowa caucus and didn't actually even mention them?

Brie Brie tho

It seems particularly self defeating for progressives right now to be playing the both sides game with anti-Trump sentiment so high. Plenty of people who normally don't pay attention are and claiming Biden is basically the same as Trump just seems likely to convince these people to pay you no mind in 2 or 4 years when you are trying to win primaries.

Who?

Well at the end of the day if that is true Biden I see as someone who can be easily manipulated by the progressives within the party to get their way as I don't see Biden being anywhere near as pig-headed as Trump is (and that probably also goes to that mental stamina thing). I think eventually if they try long enough with Biden he'll break down which you know is ok if you're happy with their agenda which most seem to be on here but probably not great on an international stage where he is meant to be sticking up for US and the western world's interests and can capitulate or change his position quite easily.

In foreign policy results we have a North Korea with new advanced missile systems and nuclear test program, an Iran with more enriched uranium, a China with increased soft power and large scale active drills for invasion of Taiwan, a Russia with more aggressive military interventions, a Europe far less concerned about US interests, a Turkey where the US has done severe policy concessions, a Israel/Palestine conflict with a mockery of a peace deal waiting to explode...and that's just on the top of my head.

The US' current foreign policy is about as firm and consistent as molding clay. The US has never looked this weak and bumbling on the international stage in my life-time. Which is fine, if the US does not want to be involved or just flail about in these matters, then by all means. It is a sovereign nation. But in regards to your point: In no way, shape or form does the US project neither strength nor firmness under the Trump administration.

And there is certainly no "sticking up" for anything. During the last four years, the US has clearly let most of us foreigners know that "the western world" means little. He is tough in tweets, but we saw the Helsinki speech: Trump will not even stand up for his own country when regime leaders come knocking.

Yes, I was referring to brie brie.

In other news:

Trump's capitulation on foreign policy to Russia, the Taliban amd China has been one of his top 100 failures. Only top 100 because he has so many failures!!!

What do you think is Trump's China strategy? Seriously? Here is what Trump mostly seems concerned about regarding China: they sell us lots of cheap goods. Good?

I don't get any sense that Trump cares about China's human rights failings in Hong Kong or Xinjiang. If anything, he seems sympathetic to China, and to just regard their response as one of those things a strong nation needs to do to keep order. I don't think Trump cares at all about China's attacks on a free press, whether abroad in their domestic censorship and state-controlled media or attempts to strong-arm foreign media. And while Trump's administration has talked about a FOIP and the Quad as a geostrategic framework, Trump himself has made these goals more difficult by rejecting the trade agreements meant to bring these allies closer to the US and pushing for draconian increases in the amount these countries are supposed to pay the US for military support.

North Korea unveiling massive new ICBM's, likely already a nuclear power... Iran closer to nukes than they have ever been... Pakistan and India in the middle of a ****ing terrifying face off... but yes, taking action on climate change is what will really undermine the world's interests. The right are so breathtakingly ****ing stupid.

Can anyone let me know how it ended with Obama and North Korea?

WHAT ABOUT OBBBBBBBAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMA


Holy crap. People like you are disgusting. It ended the same way it ended ever did after Truman.

Ok thanks.

I thought it didn't end great and there seems to have been a truce of some kind between North Korea and Trump that is all.

Legitimizing Kim to the home crowd.

4d Omaha.