Which is an insinuation that anybody who disagrees with your assessment is either engaging in a “bogus, cheap-- and frankly childish–political smear” or stupid enough to fall for one.
Reducing everything to political bias and making everything personal are a direct cause of the incivility in American society today. People can no longer disagree and come to different conclusions without the disagreement being used to pass judgment on the other’s character.
I don’t know if you realize that’s what you did here and I won’t suggest that was your intention, but I hope you can see the implications of what you apparently believe and how you stated it.
Well, Reagan had Nancy to make important decisions on his behalf after he started to lose it, and Biden has Jill. And Jill is a doctor, so she’s obviously qualified.
I said people smearing Biden over his cognitive abilities are engaging in a bogus, cheap smear. I said nothing of the sort about ‘agreeing with me or else’, or however you phrased it. There is nothing uncivil about what I said.
Mocking an older person for a speech impediment and calling him nasty names about it in a political debate is pretty uncivil though.
Is someone who has looked at footage of Biden, done research, compared Biden’s behavior to that of people they might have known who had cognitive decline, asked experts, etc. and concluded that he demonstrates symptoms of cognitive decline engaged in a “smear” by stating their opinion on the matter?
Not everyone is a political hack whose opinions are based on their ideological leanings. It’s possible to form opinions about something without running it through a political filter.
By suggesting that anyone who comes to the conclusion that Biden has signs of cognitive decline is engaging in a bogus, cheap smear, you are totally ignoring the possibility that other people could look at the same body of evidence as you and come to a reasoned, not ill-intentioned opinion that differs from yours.
Is this a veiled personal attack, or are you just waxing philosophical? If the former, you are out of bounds and uncivil yourself with the unnecessary sarcasm. I’m quite able to think for myself, thank you. If the latter, it’s irrelevant.
I’m only speaking to this case, and I’m not saying that at all. No matter how many times you want to put words in my mouth.
Sorry, it’s a smear. It’s really not even something anyone is debating anymore. You’ve gobbled up their talking point like a good customer.
i won’t be upset if biden keels over on the inauguration day and harris gets to take the reins. she is also an awful neolib cop, but she’s still marginally better than biden and has full cognitive function.
what do you expect when you have a moderate right wing party and a looney fringe far-right party as your only viable options to choose between? yeah, i’ll take marginally better, but whether they actually make good on helping the working class is yet to be seen.
“Corporate Democrats are backing off a chance to push for a new round of $2,000 survival checks. And some of them are even floating tax breaks for the wealthy instead.”
“A semantic debate about whether $1,400 is $2,000”
While a portion of Dems worry about the above, the rest are complaining about Kamala’s Vogue magazine cover and planning “what to do with people who voted for Trump”.
