Joe Biden could easily take the award for the rudest Presidential candidate in debate in my memory. Put the Vice President up against past nominees and that would be nearly undeniable. Except that he was debating the President, who didn’t want to lose out on that award. Most disturbingly, in that melee, the President’s horrid performance allowed one of the worst ideas ever brought up on a debate floor to slide by and it could easily mean we all lose.
You know, I don’t agree with Joe Biden about abortion, the redefinition of marriage— and it’s important to call it that— and so-called “religious liberty”. I voted for George W. Bush twice. I’m voting for Joe Biden.
I have a confession to make that will make virtually everyone mad. I think Donald Trump is uncouth, has worsened the political discourse in our country and continually says things about everyone from POW’s to immigrants that make me cringe. I am also planning to follow up my 2016 vote for the man with a 2020 vote for the same. Yes, I am amongst the reluctant Trump voters and here’s why.
I thought it should be her long ago. I thought that if I were Biden, I would choose Harris. I also believed that Joe Biden would have to do something to placate moderates, and while Senator Harris is not a moderate in any coherent sense, she runs in that lane, especially with regard to presentation.
I read with great interest the latest column by our esteemed Editor-In-Chief. There ought to be a theoretical neutrality, at least with regard to the government, and the potential regulation of speech. We would like to believe that the cure for bad speech is not less speech, but more and better speech. We would like to believe that in a theoretically pluralistic society, the true, the good, and the beautiful will eventually win out over the false, the bad, and the ugly. The most profound question is whether these things we would like to believe have ever been true.
The pandemic has been a test tube for a rapidly developing process by which social media platforms – particularly the overwhelmingly dominant Facebook, Twitter and YouTube – plow ahead with the purging of false information. There is good reason for their efforts: they created platforms that make the spread of even the craziest ideas incredibly easy. Those who oppose these fringe ideas celebrate as the platforms shred ideas deemed dangerous, but have we genuinely considered the cost?
Here we are on the eve of the election and, like so many recent presidential elections, we are gathered around, watching a handful of swing states that hold the future of the presidency in their collective hands. Though the polls make this race look too close to call, I'm going to call it: Romney wins.
As the third and final debate of the General Election approaches, the political writers of Open for Business look back to what has come before and speculate about what might arise in the last face-to-face debate the candidates will embark on this year.
Firstly, don't believe the polls. President Obama is not leading, or building a lead, or any such thing. He's in a fight for his political life, and he knows it. It has never been obvious that an incumbent president is going down, and it won't be all that obvious if it happens this time. I doubt Clinton's people knew they were going to win in 1992 until they did. Oh, sure, they believed they had a shot. And you have to have a ludicrous amount of confidence to be a candidate. But let's get one thing straight: it will never be an easy thing to beat a sitting president, and I've never, ever, seen an incumbent behind in most polls in the summer, even when they lose.
I want to start by saying that I know, respect, and love probably dozens of military service personnel. No one ought to doubt, on any side, that they see and deal with horrific situations that most of us can’t even guess, much less cope with. Courage is both tested and proved in their lives and stories over and over. But—and we’re quite good at saying the opposite—I don’t believe that bravery translates into policy. Frankly, I resent the suggestion that to urge a massive change in policy denigrates them.