Biden needs to step aside

[Kishkumen]

On the one hand, your take on ceeboo's comment is correct. Persuasion is persuasion and compulsion is compulsion. On the other hand, ceeboo is correct that you consider your view of Trump as fact and a vote for Trump as something other than a vote for Trump. His interpretation of your intent likely derives from years of content rather than from any single post or comment.

I consider the evidence of Trump’s disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law sufficiently ample to conclude that his next presidency would be very damaging to both. I don’t know what to do to persuade people who seem to ignore that and want to vote for Trump anyway. I know my free-speaking candidness here is unlikely to persuade ceeboo, you, ajax, and others voting for Trump. In fact, I don’t see the targets of a personality cult to be easily persuadable. That said, it won’t dissuade me from calling it a cult of personality, or saying other things about the movement that are obviously derisive but nonetheless true.

We all know that political arguments don’t work well, but it really doesn’t help to call them compulsion of some kind. In my view, it is a dead giveaway that people are calling persuasion compulsion. It shows that we have a very low tolerance of people sharing different opinions. I think that is true of the Left and the Right these days. The brand differs, but the intolerance is very similar.

As for the effect of your persuasion or the intent of your persuasion - see your bolded quote above. That is like starting a persuasive argument with "I judge you. I am lying to you. I am applying my victimization to your choice. But believe me when I say that if you don't do what I suggest, that is evidence that you hate your country."

Apparently, it doesn't go without saying, the comments and so-called persuasive argument says more about you than it does about anyone voting for Trump. It is, in effect, an invitation to not be like you and not choose leaders you admire. It persuades people to not be gaslit, torched and misled.

Yep. I get that you can’t get out of your combination of binary meets conspiracy theory. You have all the right buzz words down. As long as you throw out things like “gaslighting,” you can neutralize any discussion. All of that says more about you than it does me. See I can do it too. I am rubber and you are glue. Neener neener.

Most conversations with you end up like this.

On a final note, “leaders I admire” is a phrase that makes me wonder how closely you pay attention to what I write. Not that I care all that much, but if you feel like responding to me, and not just use my post as an opportunity to engage in your stock antics, then it might be helpful to know that I don’t admire many politicians and sometimes those I admire don’t agree with my views on quite a few things.

[Binger]

I consider the evidence of Trump’s disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law sufficiently ample to conclude that his next presidency would be very damaging to both.

That is great.

I consider your lack of evidence about people you have never met insufficient to conclude, as you do, that their votes are a vote against democracy. Neither have you provided evidence sufficient to conclude that a vote you dislike is intended to be anti-republic. And one does not need to be a rocket surgeon to know that prejudice does not convince or persuade the pre-judged - in fact, it does the opposite.

True, many conversations funnel to a similar place. That is not unique to me nor to this forum. When the foundation of arguments are based on prejudice or conclusions made without evidence, with every new comment or redirection, the conversation will narrow to those conditions.

While I may disagree with the factual content of your posts, the facts rarely pique my interest like the prejudice of your conclusions. It is curious that I still have to point that out, but let's try that again.

Unfortunately, it is very simple this time, and I do wish it were not. A vote for Trump is a vote against democracy and the Republic. Vote according to your values. If you don’t care about democracy and the Republic, or you value something else like having the Ten Commandments posted on the wall of every school more, then vote for Trump.

That, above, is your prejudical nonsense about voters and votes cast for Trump.

I have carefully considered the candidates and issues, and I believe that Joe Biden is the best choice to preserve and uphold the democratic principles and institutions of our republic. In my view, his policies and leadership are most aligned with safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms that are the foundation of American democracy.

However, I recognize that reasonable people may have different priorities and perspectives when it comes to voting. My intention is not to suggest that a vote for any other candidate is inherently "anti-democracy" or "anti-republic." I respect that each voter must make their own choice based on their individual values and assessment of the candidates.

[Binger]

George Clooney says the Joe Biden he saw 3 weeks ago was the Joe Biden we all saw at that debate.

If that is confirmed, there is a significantly bigger problem. Because, uh, Obama walked him off the stage. This was not just elite actors involved. This has the possibility of being bigger than Biden.

Uber Eats - more popcorn, please. Thanks.

[ceeboo]

If democracy and the Republic are meaningless to other Americans, then they will be gone.

"They will be gone?"

It seems you have upped the ante. Now you seem to be stating a fact.

I don't buy it - not even a little bit. My guess is that an ever-growing number of Americans are not buying it either.

And - your inappropriate implication about other Americans seeing democracy and the Republic as meaningless is the kind of political BS that ought to be called out for what it is - BS.

[Binger]

If democracy and the Republic are meaningless to other Americans, then they will be gone.

"They will be gone?"

It seems you have upped the ante. Now you seem to be stating a fact.

I don't buy it - not even a little bit. My guess is that an ever-growing number of Americans are not buying it either.

And - your inappropriate implication about other Americans seeing democracy and the Republic as meaningless is the kind of political BS that ought to be called out for what it is - BS.

ceeboo swore. YUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSS!

[Kishkumen]

"They will be gone?"

It seems you have upped the ante. Now you seem to be stating a fact.

I don't buy it - not even a little bit. My guess is that an ever-growing number of Americans are not buying it either.

And - your inappropriate implication about other Americans seeing democracy and the Republic as meaningless is the kind of political BS that ought to be called out for what it is - BS.

A conditional statement is by nature hypothetical. For the outcome to occur, the “if” statement must come true. So, no, laying out a hypothetical in a conditional statement is not the same thing as stating a fact.

[Binger]

"They will be gone?"

It seems you have upped the ante. Now you seem to be stating a fact.

I don't buy it - not even a little bit. My guess is that an ever-growing number of Americans are not buying it either.

And - your inappropriate implication about other Americans seeing democracy and the Republic as meaningless is the kind of political BS that ought to be called out for what it is - BS.

A conditional statement is by nature hypothetical. For the outcome to occur, the “if” statement must come true. So, no, laying out a hypothetical in a conditional statement is not the same thing as stating a fact.

Drawing a conclusion based on an unprovable hypothetical is, however, irrational.

[ceeboo]

A conditional statement is by nature hypothetical. For the outcome to occur, the “if” statement must come true. So, no, laying out a hypothetical in a conditional statement is not the same thing as stating a fact.

If President Biden is unwell and not capable of running the country, setting policies, making Presidential decisions, and rolling out directives, then we obviously have an unelected person, and/or unelected people, that are running this country, setting policies, making Presidential decisions, and rolling out new directives.

So, if we discover that the "if" statement is true, does this, now factual statement, concern you? Would it be the end of our democracy? How about our Republic?

[Kishkumen]

If President Biden is unwell and not capable of running the country, setting policies, making Presidential decisions, and rolling out directives, then we obviously have an unelected person, and/or unelected people, that are running this country, setting policies, making Presidential decisions, and rolling out new directives.

So, if we discover that the "if" statement is true, does this, now factual statement, concern you? Would it be the end of our democracy? How about our Republic?

No. Not particularly. Reagan showed signs of being “unwell,” but he made it to the end of his second term, and he had a strong cabinet. Biden has a strong group in his administration. Trump chased out the good ones, and he had a bunch of clowns. I would be much more concerned about a Trump administration for that reason. The next one will be much worse by design. If you are voting, you have to think about the whole package. That’s always been part of the deal. But increasingly so in recent decades. There is nothing undemocratic about keeping the likely cabinet in mind when voting for the president.

[Kishkumen]

In other words, any guy who would pick Mitchell, Bannon, or Vought ought not to receive votes. They are a bag of kooks and extremists.