The big question...

[Stella]

Does anyone have any insight into this? Why with the 333 million people in the US, have Biden and Trump ended up as the best picks? They are so obviously physically and mentally unsuitable for such a position regardless of their political views.

[peregrinator]

I think a large population makes it more, not less, likely that an unworthy candidate will bubble up to the top.

[Doom]

The Bigger Question is why is the West so quick to embrace authoritarianism in this decade when it should be regarded as a thoroughly discredited ideology.

Freedom of speech, which used to be the litmus test of a liberal democracy, is now regarded as a white supremacist doctrine whose time has come and gone. Every government in the Western world is waging war on free speech, particularly online, supporting government censorship is being done under the euphemism of "content moderation", Elon Musk, once a darling of the left, is now regarded as a reactionary extremist because he backed up his support for free speech by buying Twitter to restore free speech and end censorship on the platform, and there are fraudulent accusations that "white supremacy" and "antisemitism" supposedly being rampant on the platform. (They aren't, and the rules against such content, especially when accompanied by threats of violence, have never been lifted, they are just being enforced equally, not to just those on the right, as it always was, but even to those on the left, which it never was.)

Now, If someone calls for "free speech" he is told that "free speech" is a code word for racism.

This is insanity.

[Stella]

I think a large population makes it more, not less, likely that an unworthy candidate will bubble up to the top.

It's only just the last 2 men that have been so weirdly unsuitable though in general terms. There's been 200 million+ population since the 1960's and all those presidents had relatively good levels of competence regardless of political views.

[Stella]

The Bigger Question is why is the West so quick to embrace authoritarianism in this decade when it should be regarded as a thoroughly discredited ideology.

Freedom of speech, which used to be the litmus test of a liberal democracy, is now regarded as a white supremacist doctrine whose time has come and gone. Every government in the Western world is waging war on free speech, particularly online, supporting government censorship is being done under the euphemism of "content moderation", Elon Musk, once a darling of the left, is now regarded as a reactionary extremist because he backed up his support for free speech by buying Twitter to restore free speech and end censorship on the platform, and there are fraudulent accusations that "white supremacy" and "antisemitism" supposedly being rampant on the platform. (They aren't, and the rules against such content, especially when accompanied by threats of violence, have never been lifted, they are just being enforced equally, not to just those on the right, as it always was, but even to those on the left, which it never was.)

Now, If someone calls for "free speech" he is told that "free speech" is a code word for racism.

This is insanity.

There has to be some limitation on free speech though don't you believe? The free speech that led to January 6th doesn't serve a healthy liberal democracy for example.

[peregrinator]

I think a large population makes it more, not less, likely that an unworthy candidate will bubble up to the top.

It's only just the last 2 men that have been so weirdly unsuitable though in general terms. There's been 200 million+ population since the 1960's and all those presidents had relatively good levels of competence regardless of political views.

Hmmm, no, I don't think that's really the case.

[anawim]

It's only just the last 2 men that have been so weirdly unsuitable though in general terms. There's been 200 million+ population since the 1960's and all those presidents had relatively good levels of competence regardless of political views.

Those of us who are conservative think that Clinton and Obama were extremely unsuitable, but they both got elected twice. The average American voter is unsuitable to know what's going on. They've got their head in the sand.
Which is not to say that the Republican candidates are anything to write home about. They're usually just o.k. But o.k. is better than lousy.
Now it's a choice between lousy, and 'he's not good, but he's better than lousy'.

[Stella]

It's only just the last 2 men that have been so weirdly unsuitable though in general terms. There's been 200 million+ population since the 1960's and all those presidents had relatively good levels of competence regardless of political views.

Those of us who are conservative think that Clinton and Obama were extremely unsuitable, but they both got elected twice. The average American voter is unsuitable to know what's going on. They've got their head in the sand.
Which is not to say that the Republican candidates are anything to write home about. They're usually just o.k. But o.k. is better than lousy.
Now it's a choice between lousy, and 'he's not good, but he's better than lousy'.

But putting aside all political loyalty looking only at the men as an uninterested observer of world leaders, past and present, there's a marked difference between Biden/Trump and 'the rest' don't you agree? Such contenders would normally be recognised as unsuitable well before getting to the top in a liberal democracy.

[anawim]

But putting aside all political loyalty looking only at the men as an uninterested observer of world leaders, past and present, there's a marked difference between Biden/Trump and 'the rest' don't you agree? Such contenders would normally be recognised as unsuitable well before getting to the top in a liberal democracy.

The difference this time is that Trump is a spoiled little brat, and Biden is a sock puppet. The previous idiots had evil intent. And, no, I don't think that the intelligence of the average American would recognize unsuitable if it stared them in the face.

[BobCatholic]

The United States of America has been consecrated to the five generals of satan.

As a result, sociopaths and narcissists appear on the ballot, and they win.

[Stella]

Democrats question Biden's candidacy after 'disaster' debate performance

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-28/ ... /104036928

Finally. How could he ever lead a country for another 4 and a half years?

[Riverboat]

Democrats question Biden's candidacy after 'disaster' debate performance

Finally. How could he ever lead a country for another 4 and a half years?

A wag on another site stated "With Biden its not dementia or just plain old age. He has been stupid for 40+ years."

Yesterday, congressman Chip Roy filed a bill to get the ball rolling on removal of Biden. It's painfully obvious to everyone, including his own party and the media, that Biden shouldn't be in charge of a broom closet, let alone the executive branch. But removing him is not in the best interests of the country. Let him sink under his own weight, I say.

[anawim]

I don't think Biden has been governing the country at all. He's a sock puppet. The question as to who is running the country may never be answered, and maybe it isn't just one person. Obama is one possibility. Soros is another. Or maybe it doesn't really matter. They're all cut from the same cloth.

[Stella]

I don't think Biden has been governing the country at all. He's a sock puppet. The question as to who is running the country may never be answered, and maybe it isn't just one person. Obama is one possibility. Soros is another. Or maybe it doesn't really matter. They're all cut from the same cloth.

Our democratic system needs representatives of the different visions for good society whether it be liberal or conservative. We'd be poorer without that, but I get the impression that something's gone really wrong within the parties that's resulted in two completely unsuitable leaders rising to the top. Are the results of leadership challengers made known to the public when they happen? In Aus. in such cases, after the vote we get a rundown of how the party room voted.

[anawim]

Our democratic system needs representatives of the different visions for good society whether it be liberal or conservative. We'd be poorer without that, but I get the impression that something's gone really wrong within the parties that's resulted in two completely unsuitable leaders rising to the top. Are the results of leadership challengers made known to the public when they happen? In Aus. in such cases, after the vote we get a rundown of how the party room voted.

I don't know how Aus. does it, so I don't know what you are asking.
We have what's known as an electoral college. The number of votes is based on population. So, the number is the same as the number of Representatives in the US House. This allows someone to become President by having the right combination of states, even without a majority of the popular vote. It also allows the smaller states to have equal weight with a much larger state.
48 of the 50 states get all the votes, while 2 use proportional electors.

[peregrinator]

Electoral College's number is the same as that of the House (435) plus Senate (100) plus 3 for DC = 538

[Stella]

No, I was wondering about how the leader is elected within the party. Here, if a leader is polling poorly or has disgraced him/herself in some way, another party member can put their hand up to challenge the leader and that is then put to the party vote. From what I gather that can't happen in the US system. Only the leader himself can step down. If he did decide to step down, who steps up? Kamala Harris? We don't hear much of other Democrats who would qualify for the leadership job.

[anawim]

No, I was wondering about how the leader is elected within the party. Here, if a leader is polling poorly or has disgraced him/herself in some way, another party member can put their hand up to challenge the leader and that is then put to the party vote. From what I gather that can't happen in the US system. Only the leader himself can step down. If he did decide to step down, who steps up? Kamala Harris? We don't hear much of other Democrats who would qualify for the leadership job.

That is what the National Conventions determine. Delegates cast votes for the leading candidate. Theoretically, they could vote for whomever they want. I don't think it's ever been done. The party can also decide to change the rules. Who knows what could happen.

[peregrinator]

No, I was wondering about how the leader is elected within the party. Here, if a leader is polling poorly or has disgraced him/herself in some way, another party member can put their hand up to challenge the leader and that is then put to the party vote. From what I gather that can't happen in the US system. Only the leader himself can step down. If he did decide to step down, who steps up? Kamala Harris? We don't hear much of other Democrats who would qualify for the leadership job.

We don't have party leaders in the USA at all.

[Essential Sacrifice]

Does anyone have any insight into this? Why with the 333 million people in the US, have Biden and Trump ended up as the best picks? They are so obviously physically and mentally unsuitable for such a position regardless of their political views

I find it fairly incredible to equate the two men at all....

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/tr ... lishments/

What is it the Biden admin, has brought ?

Understand I really have no dog in the fight as I've turned my back on all of them, It's all in God's hands. But to think the America today is in as good a condition as it was at Trump admin end is sort of drunk while driving blind. Trump has no obvious physical nor mental acuity short comings in any unsuitable way in any comparable way with Biden's current condition. Per the detailed article enclosed, exposing the clarity and fullness of thought and work required to create such a comprehensive list

Trump's accomplishments are perhaps better realized when living the American experience that effected us all "regardless of their political views"