Voting isn’t actually a constitutional right like owning firearms is. There are protections about equality when it comes to voting, but not much about voting itself. States are generally given the right to decide who can vote and how they vote.
He has had some pretty bad senior moments, the worst one I can recall is the “Hey Jackie” one. In general he does talk pretty slow and just appears confused sometimes. He talks like he is really having to think about what he is saying, and that’s not just him, he didn’t use to be like that.
Most qualified and experienced for the job, regardless of race or gender
Our medical care isn’t limitless, there is only so much we can actually do. Look at how Biden has been progressing even with the best care in the world, he clearly isn’t in the best shape and it’s only going to get worse. It’s entirely possible he gets worse fast and for there to be nothing that can be done about it even with the best care we can give him.
Let it be based on the best person for the job. If that happens to be a black woman then fine, but the race and gender should not be a requirement at all. Saying that you will only choose a black woman is just as racist as sexist as saying you will only choose a white male.
I think a lot of the left agree with you, and obviously the right hates her, probably more than Biden. I also feel like the far left has grown a lot lately, the fact that Bernie even won some states in primaries just shows how big the far left has become.
I know he initially promised to pick a woman, but I’m pretty sure he changed that to black women, saying he has like 4 to choose from. Either way it’s bad taste to make such an important decision openly based on race and gender.
So we agree that nobody wants Harris as president? And that voting for Biden is how we might just end up with her as president?
He may not die, but I think it’s reasonable to think he will be deemed unfit to serve, or even step down voluntarily.
I personally don’t see that happening. To make any real drastic changes on the destroying democracy level you would have to throw away the Constitution, and I really don’t see that happening.
We also have a pretty heavily armed society, so with anything that crazy I would expect some fight back from civilians and military against the government, and hopefully that’s enough of a deterrent to not even try.
I can really see this going either way if Biden stays with his decision to run. I know every year people complain about having two bad choices, but Biden V Trump round 2 has to be a record for the actual worst options possible.
I think the issues with both Biden and Trump are fairly obvious, but another issue is that if Biden does win, there is a fairly good chance we will end up with a president Harris, probably the one person people like less than Biden as a democratic president. I think she lost so much credibility when Biden promised he would pick a black woman as a VP, basically cementing the idea that part of her qualifications for the role of VP was based purely on gender and race.
Perfect, thanks for the confirmation.
Thanks for finally admitting it!
Just to tie this all up, say “Ok, bootlicker” again if you know I’m not one and you were just projecting your desires.
Say “Ok, bootlicker” if your desire in life is to lick as many boots as possible.
Still projecting I see. What’s your fascination with licking boots?
Yup, stuck in a loop, maybe try licking that boot like you keep dreaming of, maybe it will help
Remember that we already said 10M was below the cutoff of the wealth tax, so they aren’t being taxed heavily. Furthermore, they should be able to live their whole life without investing it if they are already like 35.
I think you underestimate how fast $10M can be spent. There is a reason why most lottery winners go broke.
Whoa, so they can’t afford toys that should generally be banned for ecological reasons anyway? Again, if you can’t figure out how to live a happy life without a personal plane, you probably need to go to rich guy rehab. Just fucking find some cozy spot and live in idle luxury.
So basically you want them to just live like you do, without any extra luxuries? I’m guessing they also can only afford a modest house since even a normal house is $500k+ and then triple that if they have a mortgage.
I don’t think it’s a problem if people own a private plane as a hobby (you know, like a private pilot) or a big boat for enjoyment. I’m not talking about crazy expensive stuff here, even middle class people are owning private planes.
People don’t functionally own land, they nominally own it at the mercy of the state. Many things work this way. Your problem is that you can’t see beyond a narrow paradigm of how society is organized, as though a particular version of liberalism was ordained by God as being the natural order. It is not.
You and others here have explained your version of liberalism, I believe you call it Marxism, right? I don’t believe it’s the answer for anyone but communist countries like China, and I don’t think that’s the answer for the US or most other countries. Do you have another version you are proposing?
Turns out money laundering can actually be stopped and assets can and have actually been seized for various reasons.
We aren’t talking about money laundering or anything illegal, we are talking about people wanting to move for a better life. Only the worst of the worst countries will punish you by stealing everything from you simply for leaving.
I think you are stuck in a loop now, are you capable of saying anything different?
but it objectively is a large amount of wealth for one person to have, enough to never work again.
If they drastically reduced their lifestyle, don’t get taxed heavily, and are able to invest it, then sure. However if you don’t allow them to invest and they don’t drastically reduce their standard of living, that’s not nearly enough to retire on.
Even a fairly modest personal plane or small yacht will cost a million or more over years of use.
but I don’t think I can teach you how to do philosophy coherently.
If your idea of philosophy involves theft, I don’t think I want to learn it from you.
That is to say, in this hypothetical, large-scale capital flight is illegal,
Ah, this concept is so insane that I just can’t imagine it ever happening. In reality the companies and rich would leave and there would be nothing you could do to stop it.
So whose boots do you want to lick so badly?
It’s my belief that the reason nobody has seriously tried to change the Constitution to remove or modify the 2nd amendment is that they know it’s currently impossible. Changing the Constitution requires a serious amount of working together and agreement between the state and federal governments, and that just doesn’t exist right now.
That’s why some states are trying to pass unconstitutional laws, it’s easier to do that and get away with it at least for a little bit than it is to change the construction.