That is excellent. They better be careful or I may become hopeful.

The universal design ideal, is that, an ideal. Hopefully we strike an appropriate balance between different people’s needs. I think recognizing that some things are more challenging for some people than others is good. There should be reasonable responsibility to anticipate other’s needs and advocacy for one’s own needs.

I’ll give you my own example as a person with a disability. Have I been late to meetings/appointment “because of my disability”? Sure. I do plan to have enough time to make it work but that doesn’t always happens because of unforeseen issues that come up for me that would not for most others. Do I consider that the fault of the others involved? Of course not, let be practical.

On the other hand when possible, which has been 100% of the time since March 2020, I essentially demand virtual meetings now because my computer is the most accessible environment for me in the world and put me on far more even ground as others.

I want to argue… but I can’t. You’re right.

To be honest I was worried the US would be just too sexist and too racist for it to work but I am pleasantly surprised. Back when Hillary was running, we saw a lot of ugly stuff and I am sure they will try that again but somehow I don’t think its is going to work as well at this point in time and with this candidate.

The felon has been throwing out vile crap continuously for years now and I think its impact has worn thin and he is weaker than he was. I feel confidant Harris will be much better equipped to fight back than Clinton was.

“incoherence” so, no change?

Thank you for the insight. I was thinking about the “who answers a phone call” angle but I didn’t feel like I could guess well enough to include it.

Better to link to the source: https://apnorc.org/projects/most-say-biden-should-withdraw-from-the-presidential-race/

“The nationwide poll was conducted July 11-15, 2024 using the AmeriSpeak® Panel, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago. Online and telephone interviews using landlines and cell phones were conducted with 1,253 adults. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3.8 percentage points.”

So I am not saying people do not have doubts, because obviously they do. If they only watch mainstream media and only watched the debate, then it wont be a surprise. But I am not sure this is a very valid poll given the tiny number and that it using landlines at least in part. Who here has a landline?

Look at all those maga people nodding their heads to those “dangerous sodalist” ideas. Its almost like as people we have the same basic needs and beliefs. “Workers own this nation” “Cheers Yeah!” Politicians looking slightly nervous… “this is um, good?”

That’s fine, it was a forgone conclusion she would dismiss or delay it forever. We finally get the appeal.

That is certainly a problem but many (most?) women you ask, are paying attention to what threatens their lives and puts them into a second class status. And its not just the supposed radical leftist either. There have been and will be plenty of “good” god fearing families who get into trouble with their pregnancies and experience some true horror. Then when you get into IVF and contraception… banning porn etc.

Or his 2 impeachments. Or inciting an insurrection. He’s got a few areas to fall back on. Who knows maybe he’ll make some more memories.

Journalists seem to think this is a game. People have already seen the consequences and how they directly effect their own lives. Women (and families in general) wont forget Roe and it will have impact on an ongoing basis. Most sane people wont forget Jan 6th. People who are paying attention are not going to forget the violent rhetoric and stochastic terrorism, promises of retribution and being a dictator on day 1 etc.

I don’t even know how to check who has upvoted on beehaw. You sound a bit paranoid, maybe people just agree?

The speech was exceptional and every politician uses a teleprompter. So there is nothing to ignore. His SOTU was exceptional and one of the best I have heard in my life. His speech prior to his responses to reporters at NATO was ok. His mistakes were unfortunate but the content was very good and critically important to what we need. His responses unscripted to reporters on policy were excellent.

"He fails… EVERY time. " except when he doesn’t.

He is the dem candidate. Like every person he has his faults and I don’t agree with him on everything. I’d like to see a progressive instead but that is not realistic right now, so he has my support. Otherwise you are supporting the felon, Putin, Orban and insanity.

So you are ignoring the part about his NATO policy comments. I guess so you can stick with what you’ve already decided. Got it.

So you think he did a good job? We agree.

But I thought the narrative was that he was a senile old man who can put two words together? When you watched his responses to reporters at his NATO press conference, he wasn’t going from a teleprompter and spoke well on policy issues. But yeah, he makes mistakes when speaking, so his ability to talk policy doesn’t matter I guess.

Here is his fantastic Detroit speech from today.

https://youtube.com/live/elwW0B50cZQ

I would 100% support all 3 with no issue what so ever - they are all superb options. If I could just pick between Biden and those 3, I think I’d take Harris or Whitmer not to slight Buttigieg but I’d rather see a women in the role. I’m not sure who would be best, so let’s make the US proud and elect a woman. I’d vote for Newsom but he’d be my 5th choice on this list I’m not his biggest fan but he’s ok. That’s a great list btw I don’t know who else I’d consider.

But how could we realistically get to them? Biden says he is running and how’s that going to change? That’s the issue. Biden is the candidate so he has my support and I do believe in him. If he steps aside, I’ll take what I can get that isn’t the felon.

Its ok for political parties to choose their candidates. The problem is the two party system. No one is confused that the US is not a direct democracy.

I was thinking we were in a thread that started with:

I just spent the weekend with moderate relatives that are ready to stay home instead of voting in November because they don’t like either choice, and the debate solidified that position.

I didn’t say “moderates not voting” I said “low-information voters.”

I don’t want to argue, I mean I admit I did but that’s not really want I was intending. I think you have a valid point of view but I do not see it the way you do.