2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome)

[BallSacBounce]

just speaking candidly of a few factors which I think could help Trump with some black voters.

-no change in life style especially inner cities (kind of that Kim Klacik approach) why not try something different?

-open borders and less strict immigration policies have had more disproportional effect on black communities employment

per the national bureau of economic research



-opposition to the BLM organization (not the BLM movement) too different animals here. BLM organization is very much against religion and the nuclear family. Faith for many of the minority community is a huge part of there lives. Marcellus Wiley has a strong stance on this subject (worth a watch for sure)

-as for black women a lot of policies including welfare (while had good intentions) have had some negative impacts in terms of being financially beneficial for both parents of a child NOT to live in the same household. Maybe women are more for family structure in this sense?

per the census bureau:



On the other side the police brutality issue is a huge hurdle for the right to overcome. As they have a very strong stance and support for police and law in general. This is not my specific opinion but from my personal experience they see right from right and wrong from wrong in a sense that if you live a criminal life you are more apt to be put in situations where the police can harm you. That is not a good approach and I am 100% on board for police reform. There is no doubt there is a bias in terms of how the police interact in general with black men specifically then white men. That ultimately has been a gap in terms of where conservatives haven't been able to bridge that gap from there viewpoint to those communities because they simply don't see on daily basis even the non deadly poor interactions like Dominic Smith on the Mets and Moe Harkless on the Knicks have pointed out. Which is simply unacceptable. White men for the most part don't have to go through that...and that ultimately is the crux of the issue IMO.

Police are a local issue. Anyone concerned with their practices should contact the appropriate authorities, which in most cases are Democrats. The left wants to make it a Republican issue but it's actually more a Democrat problem but yeah, it needs to be addressed.

It is and it isn't. I agree that its a local issue in the sense unions have way too much power and this is ultimately what keeps bad cops in there jobs for longer than they should. I think a line from one union rep made a claim "that complaints are like personal fouls in basketball if you don't have any you aren't trying". I think that is simply the wrong approach. Also people running those cities are just as much to blame as well because they can locally make changes to there cities and neighborhoods.

You would also be naive to also think the right doesn't share some of this blame as well. I think the overwhelming stance on the right is that it doesn't happen that much and it doesn't effect our lives so its not the most important issue. Well let me tell you it is a major concern especially in the black community as we see with all this push in sports and the community for police reform and social justice. just ignoring the issue isn't going to work anymore and that is on both sides (especially the right) to make it known they understand, see, and hear people and are willing to make substantial change.

Oh I'm 100% with you on the need for police reform. Really everyone I talk to and most are conservatives were disgusted by Derek Chauvin actions.
So its not like we are not on your side, basically, on this issue. But we do believe in a strong police force that's true.

The politicization of George Foster was a huge tragedy when it should have been a time when we all came together. Who is served by this garbage division!

[Clyde_Style]

Watch on YouTube

with the difficulty for me to express exactly how I would like it to come across (which is difficult via text). I think the above link was what I was referring too.

Here is the excerpt of the BLM Mission Statement the Wiley cited:

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

It doesn't seem to reject nuclear families or religion.

It's saying they aim to provide a community so single mothers aren't raising their children alone and that the nuclear family isn't the only source of support.

To provide a larger "family", so to speak.

They don't mention religion at all.

I guess it would depend on how you read it. Most Christians believe the nuclear family is a privileged to have (2 parents raising there children). No one is suggesting single parents aren't superhero's because they are. I couldn't imagine raising a child or children by yourself. But if you are a believer that the family structure is the most important for the success of a child (which I do). It is tough to support an organization that would like to "disrupt it". Now that isn't suggesting I don't support single parents. I do and would hope that in that case the community and people supporting that mother help raise that child. Unfortunately in a lot of cases compared to dual parent households the stats bear out in a way where you are at a disadvantage.

Also to be clear this wasn't suppose to be a stance that suggests this is how everyone feels. I am suggesting sort of like Jonathan Isaac in a sense. There are a large group of people that feel this way about the organization (not the movement).

Maybe they didn't need to use the term disrupt, but languaging aside it is pretty clear from what was quoted the intent is to increase the communal support for single parent families in black communities that often have fatherless children.

It looks to me like you're the one overstepping the intent of that message by inferring disrupt means overthrow the traditional family. You're actually implying you feel threatened by this assertion of pooling communal resources to support people who don't have the full advantage of a two parent household.

BLM is by its very nature addressing systemic racism and to extend that to helping families that have disadvantages that are either directly or indirectly related to those systemic issues seems like a natural extension of their mission.

You don't like their semantics, but you're falsely conveying it as a threat to traditional family values which can be taken as pandering to alarmist, anti-BLM agendas.

Here, I'll edit the phrasing you object to as follows:

We wish to expand upon the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Better?

Maybe they could afford some copy editing. Or maybe they wouldn't change a darn word.

But, frankly, it appears you're stirring the pot for the wrong reasons.

[mpharris36]

Police are a local issue. Anyone concerned with their practices should contact the appropriate authorities, which in most cases are Democrats. The left wants to make it a Republican issue but it's actually more a Democrat problem but yeah, it needs to be addressed.

It is and it isn't. I agree that its a local issue in the sense unions have way too much power and this is ultimately what keeps bad cops in there jobs for longer than they should. I think a line from one union rep made a claim "that complaints are like personal fouls in basketball if you don't have any you aren't trying". I think that is simply the wrong approach. Also people running those cities are just as much to blame as well because they can locally make changes to there cities and neighborhoods.

You would also be naive to also think the right doesn't share some of this blame as well. I think the overwhelming stance on the right is that it doesn't happen that much and it doesn't effect our lives so its not the most important issue. Well let me tell you it is a major concern especially in the black community as we see with all this push in sports and the community for police reform and social justice. just ignoring the issue isn't going to work anymore and that is on both sides (especially the right) to make it known they understand, see, and hear people and are willing to make substantial change.

Oh I'm 100% with you on the need for police reform. Really everyone I talk to and most are conservatives were disgusted by Derek Chauvin actions.
So its not like we are not on your side, basically, on this issue. But we do believe in a strong police force that's true.

I don't even think that is the concern. Any compassionate caring individual knows what happened to George Floyd was heinous and wrong but that is just the tip of the iceberg though. I think the main issue is, minorities and people of color have been struggling with this forever and for the most part I believe the right looks at it as a numbers game. Well since a certain group of people commit a disproportionate part of the major violent crimes that we need to treat everyone like that. I think that bias is simply the wrong approach and if that is your approach being a public servant like a police officer shouldn't be your profession.

[GONYK]

Watch on YouTube

with the difficulty for me to express exactly how I would like it to come across (which is difficult via text). I think the above link was what I was referring too.

Here is the excerpt of the BLM Mission Statement the Wiley cited:

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

It doesn't seem to reject nuclear families or religion.

It's saying they aim to provide a community so single mothers aren't raising their children alone and that the nuclear family isn't the only source of support.

To provide a larger "family", so to speak.

They don't mention religion at all.

I guess it would depend on how you read it. Most Christians believe the nuclear family is a privileged to have (2 parents raising there children). No one is suggesting single parents aren't superhero's because they are. I couldn't imagine raising a child or children by yourself. But if you are a believer that the family structure is the most important for the success of a child (which I do). It is tough to support an organization that would like to "disrupt it". Now that isn't suggesting I don't support single parents. I do and would hope that in that case the community and people supporting that mother help raise that child. Unfortunately in a lot of cases compared to dual parent households the stats bear out in a way where you are at a disadvantage.

Also to be clear this wasn't suppose to be a stance that suggests this is how everyone feels. I am suggesting sort of like Jonathan Isaac in a sense. There are a large group of people that feel this way about the organization (not the movement).

But I don't think there is anywhere in that mission statement where they said they are against the nuclear family structure. That's to say that they aren't saying that both a mother and a father being present is bad.

They reject the notion the nuclear family is a requirement for a family to be stable, because their aim is to provide support through community should the family need it.

If you are in a 2 parent household, BLM is not advocating to break that situation up anywhere in that statement.

[mpharris36]

Here is the excerpt of the BLM Mission Statement the Wiley cited:



It doesn't seem to reject nuclear families or religion.

It's saying they aim to provide a community so single mothers aren't raising their children alone and that the nuclear family isn't the only source of support.

To provide a larger "family", so to speak.

They don't mention religion at all.

I guess it would depend on how you read it. Most Christians believe the nuclear family is a privileged to have (2 parents raising there children). No one is suggesting single parents aren't superhero's because they are. I couldn't imagine raising a child or children by yourself. But if you are a believer that the family structure is the most important for the success of a child (which I do). It is tough to support an organization that would like to "disrupt it". Now that isn't suggesting I don't support single parents. I do and would hope that in that case the community and people supporting that mother help raise that child. Unfortunately in a lot of cases compared to dual parent households the stats bear out in a way where you are at a disadvantage.

Also to be clear this wasn't suppose to be a stance that suggests this is how everyone feels. I am suggesting sort of like Jonathan Isaac in a sense. There are a large group of people that feel this way about the organization (not the movement).

Maybe they didn't need to use the term disrupt, but languaging aside it is pretty clear from what was quoted the intent is to increase the communal support for single parent families in black communities that often have fatherless children.

It looks to me like you're the one overstepping the intent of that message by inferring disrupt means overthrow the traditional family. You're actually implying you feel threatened by this assertion of pooling communal resources to support people who don't have the full advantage of a two parent household.

BLM is by its very nature addressing systemic racism and to extend that to helping families that have disadvantages that are either directly or indirectly related to those systemic issues seems like a natural extension of their mission.

You don't like their semantics, but you're falsely conveying it as a threat to traditional family values which can be taken as pandering to alarmist, anti-BLM agendas.

Here, I'll edit the phrasing you object to as follows:

We wish to expand upon the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Better?

Maybe they could afford some copy editing. Or maybe they wouldn't change a darn word.

But, frankly, it appears you're stirring the pot for the wrong reasons.

do you not agree that wording can completely change the tone or perception of a statement?

Your editing would provide more inclusion and openness.

The current statement is very divisive.

That is the reason you have the following statements that are made. From the Dean of an HBCU.

Pierce, who serves as dean of Howard University School of Divinity, described how much tension exists between black churches and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement

[mpharris36]

Here is the excerpt of the BLM Mission Statement the Wiley cited:



It doesn't seem to reject nuclear families or religion.

It's saying they aim to provide a community so single mothers aren't raising their children alone and that the nuclear family isn't the only source of support.

To provide a larger "family", so to speak.

They don't mention religion at all.

I guess it would depend on how you read it. Most Christians believe the nuclear family is a privileged to have (2 parents raising there children). No one is suggesting single parents aren't superhero's because they are. I couldn't imagine raising a child or children by yourself. But if you are a believer that the family structure is the most important for the success of a child (which I do). It is tough to support an organization that would like to "disrupt it". Now that isn't suggesting I don't support single parents. I do and would hope that in that case the community and people supporting that mother help raise that child. Unfortunately in a lot of cases compared to dual parent households the stats bear out in a way where you are at a disadvantage.

Also to be clear this wasn't suppose to be a stance that suggests this is how everyone feels. I am suggesting sort of like Jonathan Isaac in a sense. There are a large group of people that feel this way about the organization (not the movement).

But I don't think there is anywhere in that mission statement where they said they are against the nuclear family structure. That's to say that they aren't saying that both a mother and a father being present is bad.

They reject the notion the nuclear family is a requirement for a family to be stable, because their aim is to provide support through community should the family need it.

If you are in a 2 parent household, BLM is not advocating to break that situation up anywhere in that statement.

we will just have to respectfully agree to disagree the definition of disrupt:

interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem.

drastically alter or destroy the structure of (something).

not inclusive...that is divisive.

[Clyde_Style]

Trump's health may start to impact this election.

The Projector-In-Chief always tips his hand via pre-emptive denials.

Yesterday I posted that a new book reveals Trump was rushed to Walter Reed Hospital in November and Pence was put on standby due to Trump's health emergency.

From what I've discerned thus far, there have been no media leaks saying Trump had a series of mini-strokes, yet here is Trump specifically saying that was what did NOT happen.

IOW, you can pretty much take it to the bank that Trump did have a series of mini-strokes this past November

Read on Twitter

[GONYK]

I guess it would depend on how you read it. Most Christians believe the nuclear family is a privileged to have (2 parents raising there children). No one is suggesting single parents aren't superhero's because they are. I couldn't imagine raising a child or children by yourself. But if you are a believer that the family structure is the most important for the success of a child (which I do). It is tough to support an organization that would like to "disrupt it". Now that isn't suggesting I don't support single parents. I do and would hope that in that case the community and people supporting that mother help raise that child. Unfortunately in a lot of cases compared to dual parent households the stats bear out in a way where you are at a disadvantage.

Also to be clear this wasn't suppose to be a stance that suggests this is how everyone feels. I am suggesting sort of like Jonathan Isaac in a sense. There are a large group of people that feel this way about the organization (not the movement).

But I don't think there is anywhere in that mission statement where they said they are against the nuclear family structure. That's to say that they aren't saying that both a mother and a father being present is bad.

They reject the notion the nuclear family is a requirement for a family to be stable, because their aim is to provide support through community should the family need it.

If you are in a 2 parent household, BLM is not advocating to break that situation up anywhere in that statement.

the definition of disrupt

interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem.

drastically alter or destroy the structure of (something).

not inclusive...that is divisive.

Let's look at the sentence where that word shows up:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

So yes, they want to drastically alter that 2 parents are required for a child to not fall behind. They want to alter that by providing community and support to the degree that the family wants it.

They never said they want to disrupt the family itself. How would they even do that?

[mpharris36]

But I don't think there is anywhere in that mission statement where they said they are against the nuclear family structure. That's to say that they aren't saying that both a mother and a father being present is bad.

They reject the notion the nuclear family is a requirement for a family to be stable, because their aim is to provide support through community should the family need it.

If you are in a 2 parent household, BLM is not advocating to break that situation up anywhere in that statement.

the definition of disrupt

interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem.

drastically alter or destroy the structure of (something).

not inclusive...that is divisive.

Let's look at the sentence where that word shows up:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

So yes, they want to drastically alter that 2 parents are required for a child to not fall behind. They want to alter that by providing community and support.

They never said they want to disrupt the family itself. How would they even do that?

Why would you want to drastically alter (taking the lighter side of the definition) something that every stat shows is a privileged to a child? I don't care if you are a man and a women, 2 women or 2 men. Now I don't want to go too far down the religion path but if you believe in the stance that it takes two people to create a child then I am a big supporting of having two loving parents help raise that child.

You can disagree and that is fine, but I think the point is there are many people who see this as divisive (you may not). But I'm just telling you a LOT of people do. But I don't want to stray too far off topic because this should relate more to the political thread. That was just one specific talking point to Phish take on why or how could black people ever vote conservative. I was just acknowledging one view point. Not saying stating it as the only fact because you have brought up many good points as well.

[GONYK]

the definition of disrupt

interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem.

drastically alter or destroy the structure of (something).

not inclusive...that is divisive.

Let's look at the sentence where that word shows up:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

So yes, they want to drastically alter that 2 parents are required for a child to not fall behind. They want to alter that by providing community and support.

They never said they want to disrupt the family itself. How would they even do that?

Why would you want to drastically alter (taking the lighter side of the definition) something that every stat shows is a privileged to a child? I don't care if you are a man and a women, 2 women or 2 men. Now I don't want to go too far down the religion path but if you believe in the stance that it takes two people to create a child then I am a big supporting of having two loving parents help raise that child.

You can disagree and that is fine, but I think the point is there are many people you see this as divisive (you may not). But I'm just telling you a LOT of people do. But I don't want to stray too far off topic because this should relate more to the political thread. That was just wont specific response to Phish take on why or how could black people every vote conservative. I was just acknowledging one view point. Not saying stating it as the only fact because you have brought up many good points as well.

I don't want to disrupt it. What I'm saying is that nowhere does BLM say they do either. We're both agreeing with you, that the more support a child has, the better off they will be.

I'm not sure what is divisive about that.One would have to literally have to ignore parts of the sentence, as it is written, to come to the conclusion that Wiley applied to the statement.

I understand what you're saying, but the viewpoint that Wiley expressed is illegitimate. By that, I mean it is based on something that was never said.

I think it's important that that is acknowledged. That's essentially what our politics are about at this juncture. What do people actually represent? What are they actually saying?

BLM never actually said what is being claimed that black people are responding to and potentially voting for.

[DOT]

There are actually a lot of cultures, I believe mostly in Africa though I'm not an anthropologist so don't quote me on that, in which raising a family is a more communal affair, rather than the strict 2 parents nuclear family we have here

In my opinion, what's really doing damage to the nuclear family is the fact that police are far more likely to arrest young black men and the criminal justice system will put them in prison longer than young white men for similar offenses.

[GONYK]

There are actually a lot of cultures, I believe mostly in Africa though I'm not an anthropologist so don't quote me on that, in which raising a family is a more communal affair, rather than the strict 2 parents nuclear family we have here

In my opinion, what's really doing damage to the nuclear family is the fact that police are far more likely to arrest young black men and the criminal justice system will put them in prison longer than young white men for similar offenses.

Young and old. There is a lot about the system, as it is currently set up, that removes fathers from the equation as well.

[BallSacBounce]

It is and it isn't. I agree that its a local issue in the sense unions have way too much power and this is ultimately what keeps bad cops in there jobs for longer than they should. I think a line from one union rep made a claim "that complaints are like personal fouls in basketball if you don't have any you aren't trying". I think that is simply the wrong approach. Also people running those cities are just as much to blame as well because they can locally make changes to there cities and neighborhoods.

You would also be naive to also think the right doesn't share some of this blame as well. I think the overwhelming stance on the right is that it doesn't happen that much and it doesn't effect our lives so its not the most important issue. Well let me tell you it is a major concern especially in the black community as we see with all this push in sports and the community for police reform and social justice. just ignoring the issue isn't going to work anymore and that is on both sides (especially the right) to make it known they understand, see, and hear people and are willing to make substantial change.

Oh I'm 100% with you on the need for police reform. Really everyone I talk to and most are conservatives were disgusted by Derek Chauvin actions.
So its not like we are not on your side, basically, on this issue. But we do believe in a strong police force that's true.

I don't even think that is the concern. Any compassionate caring individual knows what happened to George Floyd was heinous and wrong but that is just the tip of the iceberg though. I think the main issue is, minorities and people of color have been struggling with this forever and for the most part I believe the right looks at it as a numbers game. Well since a certain group of people commit a disproportionate part of the major violent crimes that we need to treat everyone like that. I think that bias is simply the wrong approach and if that is your approach being a public servant like a police officer shouldn't be your profession.

Well one second, before we get to your further point I think it's worth noting and certain people noticing that no, we did not support what Chauvin did. Because there is a concerted campaign to demonize and dehumanize conservatives. And unless we can take a moment and reflect on what we agree on there will be no coming together.

Anyway, what exactly do you mean by we think everyone should be treated like that? Like what? George Foster? No we don't. What specifically?

[infinite11285]

As a lifelong Independent voter, I can’t think of a single reason to vote for Trump in 2020. Not a single person(not one), can objectively look at National matters now, compared to four years ago, and proclaim we’re better off with another four years of this. By all measures, the US is a failing state.

[mpharris36]

There are actually a lot of cultures, I believe mostly in Africa though I'm not an anthropologist so don't quote me on that, in which raising a family is a more communal affair, rather than the strict 2 parents nuclear family we have here

In my opinion, what's really doing damage to the nuclear family is the fact that police are far more likely to arrest young black men and the criminal justice system will put them in prison longer than young white men for similar offenses.

Young and old. There is a lot about the system, as it is currently set up, that removes fathers from the equation as well.

that I 100% agree with

[Clyde_Style]

Read on Twitter

This made me laugh

[HarthorneWingo]

All of those clips, I mean the guy is clearly a barely functioning cartoon

So what does it say about people who see all of that on Fox News and are still willing to support him?

What percentage of those people say to themselves, yeah he's a buffoon and the stuff he says is wack, but I still feel the GOP represents me better?

And what percentage see that and say right on! you're the man! speak the truth!?

What they usually say is, “Well, look at your candidate yada yada”

[Clyde_Style]

All of those clips, I mean the guy is clearly a barely functioning cartoon

So what does it say about people who see all of that on Fox News and are still willing to support him?

What percentage of those people say to themselves, yeah he's a buffoon and the stuff he says is wack, but I still feel the GOP represents me better?

And what percentage see that and say right on! you're the man! speak the truth!?

What they usually say is, “Well, look at your candidate yada yada”

Tit for tat is to be expected, but to disseminate the few seconds out of an otherwise great 20+ minute speech is basically working for the opposition.

And let's put something out there and discuss it if we need to:

JOE BIDEN HAS A STUTTER

It is a lifelong condition he has largely overcome. This is part of his neural circuitry and it will from time to time sabotage his train of thought.

Do any of you seriously want to keep targeting him as senile when clearly the issue for Biden has been he has spent his whole lifetime with this stuttering condition and still managed to overcome it in spite of the false attributions?

I mean if people want to be fair, then state the truth. Biden has a cognitive condition from birth and it means he'll always have moments when his brain short circuits and he has to reboot his thought process. It leads to word salad every so often, but it is NOT an issue of cognitive decline even if he is an older guy. Maybe he loses a step due to age, but that is not the fundamental fact.

Here's a suggestion:

How about we support the guy who had the personal will and courage to overcome his stutter to have a career in public service?

[mpharris36]

Oh I'm 100% with you on the need for police reform. Really everyone I talk to and most are conservatives were disgusted by Derek Chauvin actions.
So its not like we are not on your side, basically, on this issue. But we do believe in a strong police force that's true.

I don't even think that is the concern. Any compassionate caring individual knows what happened to George Floyd was heinous and wrong but that is just the tip of the iceberg though. I think the main issue is, minorities and people of color have been struggling with this forever and for the most part I believe the right looks at it as a numbers game. Well since a certain group of people commit a disproportionate part of the major violent crimes that we need to treat everyone like that. I think that bias is simply the wrong approach and if that is your approach being a public servant like a police officer shouldn't be your profession.

Well one second, before we get to your further point I think it's worth noting and certain people noticing that no, we did not support what Chauvin did. Because there is a concerted campaign to demonize and dehumanize conservatives. And unless we can take a moment and reflect on what we agree on there will be no coming together.

Anyway, what exactly do you mean by we think everyone should be treated like that? Like what? George Foster? No we don't. What specifically?

We meaning conservatives. I wouldn't say I'm right on everything (mostly on economical issues I lean heavy right) social I'm a little all over the place which is why I would label myself more as a moderate conservative but the idea would be (and me a guy in the financial field) tends to look at numbers. When sometimes I'm focused on the numbers and you might ignore other things like the human side of things. My wife would say the same thing about me I'm very analytic in almost every situation, its why we balance each other out so well

[HarthorneWingo]

All of those clips, I mean the guy is clearly a barely functioning cartoon

So what does it say about people who see all of that on Fox News and are still willing to support him?

What percentage of those people say to themselves, yeah he's a buffoon and the stuff he says is wack, but I still feel the GOP represents me better?

And what percentage see that and say right on! you're the man! speak the truth!?

What they usually say is, “Well, look at your candidate yada yada”

Tit for tat is to be expected, but to disseminate the few seconds out of an otherwise great 20+ minute speech is basically working for the opposition.

And let's put something out there and discuss it if we need to:

JOE BIDEN HAS A STUTTER

It is a lifelong condition he has largely overcome. This is part of his neural circuitry and it will from time to time sabotage his train of thought.

Do any of you seriously want to keep targeting him as senile when clearly the issue for Biden has been he has spent his whole lifetime with this stuttering condition and still managed to overcome it in spite of the false attributions?

I mean if people want to be fair, then state the truth. Biden has a cognitive condition from birth and it means he'll always have moments when his brain short circuits and he has to reboot his thought process. It leads to word salad every so often, but it is NOT an issue of cognitive decline even if he is an older guy. Maybe he loses a step due to age, but that is not the fundamental fact.

Here's a suggestion:

How about we support the guy who had the personal will and courage to overcome his stutter to have a career in public service?

Did you say “stutterer”?

Watch on YouTube