Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The chart that saved his life has become a definite security blanket. Which maybe he genuinely needs … he may well have PTSD.
Biden worked with GOP legislators on a number of bills through his tenure and "working with both sides" was addressed regarding the immigration legislation that Trump derailed.I come in peace....and have two hopefully somewhat interesting observations/questions about the debate Tuesday night.
1. From what I heard, there was not any mention of the national debt/deficits/balancing budgets. That is kind of astonishing to me because that always felt like a hot topic in the past. My guess is that everyone involved realizes that balanced budges are a pipe dream these days so why even bother to address it, and to me, is a very bad sign about ever approaching any kind of fiscal responsibility in the near future. A possible government shutdown looms and not a peep of that either. What do all of you make of that omission?
2. The entire back and forth about what each presidential candidate will do if elected really ignored the big old elephant/donkey in the room. The President cannot (and maybe should not) be able to do too much without the support of Congress. I was stunned that neither candidate implored voters to vote for Senate and House candidates from their respective parties. Maybe both are planning to use Executive Orders more. The talk about working across the aisle with members of the other Party surely has gone away but now it feels like they have forgotten to even discuss getting a majority in the Senate and House to really get legislation moving. Was that omission by both on purpose or just did not think of it?
Some media starting to go there about Trump’s mental fitness …
He ain't no Cavillrine
My main critique of this article is that while it is true that the word salad cited was a tangent to the question asked by the moderator, it was an attempt at a direct rebuttal of things Harris just said about Trump, which is a common debate strategy.
The rebuttal is still an absolute jumble of thoughts that looks and sounds like random brain firing rather than a coherent response, sure, but I disagree with labeling it tangential thinking based solely on the question asked when it was clearly a response to what Harris just said.