Fat is a type of crazy

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

First of all, I had written this in my last reply to you:

 

You have this impression of me that I believe in God, that I believe in supernatural agencies, that I believe in supernatural beings or entities, that I subscribe to theism, that I believe in a supernatural realm.  I believe in none of that.

 

And:

 

And so, I expect no more references from you as to what you think I know or believe.  If you're uncertain then have the courtesy to ask me first.  I demand intellectual honesty for without it there's nowhere for us to go.  Are we clear?

 

Yet here you are spouting the same BS about me that I believe in a supernatural being.  I demanded intellectual honesty from you I guess that would throw a monkey wrench into your narrative so you simply continue to dishonestly proceed with your narrative that I believe in a supernatural being.

 

Secondly, here's an entry from Wiki on consciousness:

 

Consciousness, at its simplest, is awareness of internal and external existence. However, its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debate by philosophers, theologians, and all of science. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. In some explanations, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition. Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises a curiosity about whether the right questions are being asked.

 

Examples of the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain.

 

Millennia of analyses, and however many hundreds of years by science, and yet to this day science doesn't have much of any clue as to what consciousness is.  And they have even less of a clue as to where consciousness is.  For the life of them they can't find it's physical location.  Do you know why?  Because consciousness isn't physical.  And thus it can't be proven to exist, nor can it be found to reside anywhere in the physical world.

 

This is illustrates conclusively the point that I've been making which you refuse to accept.  There exist in the world phenomenon which are not physical.  And if they are not physical then how the f are you going to legitimately place the burden of proof on the claimant, or demand they produce the evidence of it's existence?  I'm sure you would claim you have consciousness.  That you have awareness.  So prove it.  Show me where your consciousness is.  Well, after millennia of analyses and no one has yet been able to do it then neither will you.  But you can't deny the fact that you have consciousness.  To deny that would be the epitome of stupidity.

 

Same with thoughts.  Thoughts aren't physical.  But they sure as hell exist and are real.  Think a thought and then prove to someone else that the thought you had exists.  You can't.  Another instance, which example I've used earlier - but conveniently ignored by you, of phenomenon which surely exist yet can't be proven to exist.

 

But hey, keep fooling yourself as long as you would like to.  You don't fool me, though. 

There are many unknowns about how consciousness works but you have not proven conclusively that there are non physical forces - not even close. 

We all have thoughts and a consciousness but there is no evidence that it is not reliant or a product of our physicality.

One of your key claims seems to be that non physical forces can control the physical world and that an individual can influence their life and or surroundings through these non physical means. As I have noted, if direct physical evidence is not possible, you should seemingly be able to provide statistical secondary evidence to back up your claims.

Followers or adherents of your doctrine or ideas, could show specific and possibly unusual or surprising outcomes in their physical lives, that came from these non-physical concepts e.g. we are not sure why there is a link between A and B, or what forces are at play, but clearly A leads to B.

Next steps may be to see if you can gather evidence or alternatively live your life happily in your faith that to you these are self evident truths. But in my opinion criticism of those that doubt, on the basis that they don't have your faith or that they can't comment without 10000 hours meditating or reading 1000000 words, is not a fair way to make an argument. You need evidence. 

His take on things are sensible and likely accurate for those who don't believe in a god or for those like Thaibeachlovers who see a god as there but hands off. Of course denying that there are objectively human rights as part of the ether is not to say human kind cannot decide that life is better if we introduce human rights as laws.

I have not seen the WEF have an anti human agenda. I have seen some cynics misinterpret on purpose things attributed to them such as 'You'll own nothing and be happy' which was one obscure speaker talking about the sharing economy and in no way suggesting or dictating how things should be beyond this. 

30 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Vivek actually predicted it.  He claimed that the objective was to eliminate all contenders aside from Trump and their preferred candidate, then double down on the legal attacks against Trump so their preferred candidate would be the one.

 

I think DeSantis made a mistake here.  If (when?) Trump gets taken out, his voters would be a lot more likely to migrate to DeSantis than to Haley.  So being in 3rd place, down just a couple of points, didn't mean a loss.  And a Trump exit is the only shot any of them (including Vivek) had.

 

Suppose if Trump falls over De Santis can maybe start it up again. They all seem to use the term suspending the campaign. Or would Hayley win automatically if she has some points from a win in New Hampshire or something. Interesting. 

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

When I went to China for a couple of weeks absolutely nothing was as the western media portrayed it.

Nobody followed or watched me, I could go where I pleased. Small business flourished. Immigration and visa was easier, and the staff more pleasant and helpful. No police apparent on the streets.

 

They had more personal freedom than the UK or the USA as far as I could tell.

 

Your opinions are all formed by western anti Chinese propaganda!

Could be some of those journalists, who get fact checked and stand by their words, see things you don't see. A compliant tourist looking at a panda or a wall or eating yum cha might not see what goes on behind the smiles of the government and the army and police. 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

Biden and the left cares nothing about the "average American working man", and in fact has contempt for him. The average American working man knows this, and that is why he supports Trump. 

 

 

Focusing on the working person for a minute. I get that at times some on the left, mainly the young which is nothing new,  may seem a bit precious and care about issues rather than the working class but I don't see that with Biden.  

Biden supports unions. Higher wages. Lots of jobs right now. Efforts somewhat successful to reduce inflation. 

If it was 2016 you might be forgiven for thinking Trump might shake things up in favour of the working man - but what did he do in 4 years. Tax cuts for the wealthy. Promises on healthcare but all he tried to do is remove support measures. No push for better wages. It seems like bravado, and attitude is what his fans like, even if it has no substantive action behind it. Or he can talk about freedom and the border and guns and how bad the left is and ...words words words ... and that satisfies his supporters.

Let's talk specifics - he benefited low and average income working people by .... 

25 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

On American Samoa, they're most likely to end up as NGs or DTs. Funny, I thought the OL most likely. But not so.

Not sure what those acronyms are 

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

@GammaGlobulin  One's a city, ones a country...but...

 

HELL NO ... to many overly fat / obese people, and not just the expats, the women also.    Imagine if you will, half the women at Pattaya, as fat as all the farangs on Soi 6 

 

 

 

I saw a story about how they import a lot of unhealthy foods in a lot of south pacific countries including fatty salty meats, a bit spam like, doesn't help.

17 hours ago, BigStar said:

 

More than a couple of comments AND high profile. Bill's on board, and she helped build the whole big leftist momentum behind abolishing the Electoral College and turning over the vote to the mobs.

 

Hillary isn't Biden, but the point I was making was about the broad-based tradition. Dems approve overthrows (by lawfare, if possible, or de facto coup) if it's their overthrow, you see. Moreover, I agreed that Trump was the loudest monkey in the forest--out of a LOT of monkeys (link given).

 

 

They're obviously linked by Biden's incompetence, bad decision-making, and, with Ukraine, possible corruption. All the implicitly Dem-approved rioting by their militant arms is linked to Biden as the leader of the party in power who did nothing. Doing nothing is also taking responsibility, as you'd be quick to point out IF it's Trump.

 

 

This is a disputed point that, as I earlier pointed out, you aren't competent to discuss.

 

 

But countries with their fiscal houses in order didn't suffer large increases in their inflation rates. We'll never know if the inflation rate in the US would have been lower under Trump. Probably so, as all those huge spending bills to support the wasteful Dem vote-buying wouldn't have run up the deficit as much.

 

As for workers, what workers? Labor unions of all stripes are traditionally paid off by the Dem party in exchange for their votes at the expense of consumers. Given the salaries of union bosses and staff, workers are constantly bombarded with propaganda and don't dare speak against the leadership. Still, Trump got 4 out of 10 labor union votes in 2016j, best of any Repub ever.

 

He can make the case that Biden's open borders will create jobs competition and a vast misuse of tax money for illegal immigrant welfare. It's amazing what a high percentage of Biden's "jobs" are actually for social welfare needed for illegal immigrants and the otherwise impoverished. The Welfare-Industrial Complex This is not to more government overhead in general and "favored" industries. Great if you're working for one of those. :) 

 

However, a lot of Biden voters are too obtuse and brainwashed to care about any of that. Inner city voters in Dem-run cities keep voting for the same kinds of idiots destroying their once-great cities. Eric Adams, Brandon Johnson, London Breed . . . . Funniest part of the DeSantis-Newsom debate was when DeSantis pulled out the poop map of San Francisco.

 

Trump can point to Biden's canceling of the Keystone pipeline, hostility to oil and gas, and support for EV. And he can point out that he imposed tariffs on imports. 

 

Yet most union workers go for the short-term payouts. Layoffs, business failures, higher prices, greater taxes, jobs lost from automation and now AI--go over their heads. Elite, favored union members won't be better off under Trump. Currently, the West seems moving more and more towards Hunger Games societies. The fact that a number of groups won't benefit, groups you like who enjoy unfair advantages owing to political market distortions, is a good thing. :) One of the great things Thatcher did was to curb the power of unions, no?

 

That's about it. You asked for an informed, evidence-based opinion, you got it. And I gave you sources of objective info. Your opinion, however important it is to you and seemingly rational, basically just repeats MSNBC, a Democratic mouthpiece. So I know all your opinions and thoughts already on this topic.

A few points:

• There is a logic to removing the Electoral College - those mobs you talk of are voters - too much power in the hands of the Dakotas - it is open to debate - I see some Hillary comments on this from long ago but no secret plan to make it happen.
• Few if any major economies didn't have significant inflation - maybe Japan due to weak household consumption.
• Unions have been hugely beneficial to workers and many American industries would benefit. Look at Thailand to see how the worker gets ripped off without unions. Like any group power corrupts and powerful unions can have issues. 
• I may not be as one sided as you think - I can see an argument for some Republican policies - it's the Republican politicians that are atrocious. I can see arguments that in one way January 6 was mainly a group of charged up nobodies who turned into a mob and had no bigger plan in mind. I can see that say the valuation of properties charges could have a political element.
• But many of the current charges, including those related to January 6, appear well reasoned and valid and show Trump has a half assed doofus with no moral sensibilities.
• It's not an interest in Trump that keeps my interest - he is a bore - 3 minutes of his speeches and I've had enough - it's that so many seemingly normal and or intelligent people can support him. It's bizarre. 

If you like rugby and drinking kava it might be your cup of tea. 

23 hours ago, BigStar said:

 

Hillary, though conceding, kept up her "stolen" narrative and called for an end to the Electoral College, attempting to overthrow the system and deprive smaller states of due representation. Stacey Abrams, too, started up a special-interest group, and engaged in serious lawfare attempting to undermine respect for election results, alleging discriminatory and suppressive election practices in Georgia. She finally lost. Both were and are "outrageous."

 

I doubt you're sufficiently knowledgeable to discuss Jan 6, but you may give some examples of articles you've read, such as the brief one I linked for you, in the interest of having an objective, informed opinion, explaining why Jan 6 wasn't that big of a deal, as these things go, and how Trump didn't encourage any rioting, let alone insurrection. This is not to offend anyone's religion. I'd agree he didn't handle it well. Often he doesn't act in his own best interests.

 

 

Finally did and of course botched it, as you note. As Obama said, "Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f--- things up."

 

And so not surprisingly his own botching basically led to the Ukraine-Russia war, otherwise preventable. Lot of leftist propagandists support him (paid by lobbyists, I assume) as well as Repub militarists; you may be onboard. Nonetheless, sentiment seems gradually turning against perpetual warfare, as people are gradually realizing the costs of supporting the military-industrialist complex Eisenhower warned about. Trump seems in agreement, one of his appealing points. 

 

 

The poll numbers merely reflect the results of his real failings on the economy. Why would you, an objective observer, wish to deny the facts?

 

The question is, why are voters so down on the economy if the Biden administration is constantly touting its economic record? The simple answer: Facts are stubborn things.

   --Failure of “Bidenomics” Is Rankling Americans

 

We could come up with a list of his other failures and power grabs, some found illegal.

 

 

In view of their pretensions to support democracy while undermining it--very much so. Told a big lie the other day, and doubled down on it, with the blessing of controlled media, about drownings on the border. Biden Administration, Media Caught Lying After Blaming Recent Border Drownings On Texas. New report out says FinCen, like Bolsheviks, asked banks to troll through their customers' private, protected speech for terms the regime thinks hostile.

 

This could be a very long list. But the best example you're familiar with would be the Jan 6 "insurrection" lie constantly repeated for re-election purposes and used in lawfare, for example, the illegal removal of Trump from ballots. (BTW, that Colorado decision was laughable in its self-righteous pomposity, covering up the poor reasoning.)

 

You remind me of this covering for implicitly Dem-sanctioned rioting:

 

 

One of many.

 

As you can see even on the forum threads, reasoning is useless. Force and power are what they understand, period. It's come to that, so bring it on.

 

 

Again, you're merely echoing the party line. You may link to articles you've read that disagree with you on each point, if you've read any. As an article referenced above notes, partisan lawfare against Trump is running out of gas. 

 

 

Hey I was going to write a long reply as I strongly disagree with these old chestnuts you bring up - comparing a couple of comments from Hillary, who is not Biden, to Trump's over the topness, linking Afghanistan to Ukraine somehow, comparing a totally unrelated riot in Kenosha which Biden had nothing to do with, to January 6 - at the Capitol no less - which Trump was clearly responsible for etc etc.

I will give you the economic point that inflation is a killer for all sorts of reasons and workers, including myself in Australia, aren't impressed with being told they can't have wages keeping pace or it causes more inflation - always workers pay in the end. But that's world wide and if you think Trump would have had lower inflation or been a friend of the worker with higher wages then that's fine. 

I could wax lyrical further about this but ... 

I had problems adding to your post Mr Gamma. I did consider whether to do a long cut short post but it was targeted to Big Star in particular so had to reply to his range of points. But I’ll take your feedback on board. 

10 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

This is COMPLETE nonsense...just because....

Almost anyone with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, by definition, is unable to have control over his narcissism.

 

AND, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is almost impossible to treat, simply because the narcissist has no motivation to change....just due to the symptoms of his illness....even though it is also possible that the narcissist may have limited insight into his condition.

 

Read what you write...and then edit out what is bogus, is all that I am suggesting....

 

 

 

You can be a thing or alternatively have tendencies towards a type of behaviour that is that thing. Most are in the latter category and surely have a bit of self awareness to seek treatment or manage symptoms. If he is the full narcissistic package maybe it is a lost cause. 

10 hours ago, BigStar said:

 

Thank you. I have a good opinion of your reasoning on various topics as well. It's shocking how some of our intelligent members whom I respect, who seem capable of rational, independent thought otherwise, can suddenly foam at the mouth and spew ignorance and MSNBC hatred when it comes to their political beliefs.  So I'll give you a more thoughtful view that should stretch the thread out 5 more pages. Reminds me of Morpheus' observation to Neo that

 

You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

 

 

Mixed blessing, ain't he? We'd probably all wish for better choices. Trump, now, seems to have the best chance, among the Repubs, of getting elected. People prefer Trump from common sense, not ignorance or cultism or Bible-thumping or any of that other nonsense. Quite simply, things were better under his presidency. He did some major things right, as Jamie Dimon, CEO of J. P. Morgan Chase, no idiot, an Obama donor, said recently:

 

Jamie Dimon has a warning for Democrats: Don’t dismiss Trump supporters as people who are exclusively attracted to his personality. Former President Donald Trump was right about some critical issues, the JPMorgan CEO says.

     --Jamie Dimon: Trump was right about key issues and bashing MAGA will hurt Biden

 

He has the most charisma of the candidates and great, often annoying--if amusing--presence. Biggest problem is that he often doesn't deliver on his promises, and he does tell some porkies, indulge in childish name-calling, engage in conspiracy theories for his own benefit, etc. Where's The Wall? Can't have too much faith in politicians, eh. Lies and hyperbole are the coins of that realm.

 

 

Indeed. 'Course, politicians gon' deny they lost their elections. Nothing new, 'cept Trump's the loudest monkey in the forest. Democrats Have A Lengthy History Of Casting Doubt On Election Results

 

The road ahead for Trump is not only to regain the presidency but then also to straighten out Biden's mess, domestically and internationally. Note that

 

Only one-third of U.S. adults say they approve of President Biden’s job performance — a record low for his presidency and for any president in the last 15 years.

     --https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4408318-bidens-approval-rating-drops-to-new-low-poll/

 

What makes the latter struggle harder is that he's so antagonistic that the Deep State, the legacy media, the leftist universities, and liberal tech, all benefitting from government largess, are arrayed against him. Even during his presidency, he was thwarted in more ways than one. Deep State Thwarted Trump’s Afghanistan Withdrawal Now gov't spending has already created inflation and astronomical debt. That limits his fiscal options considerably.

 

Despite all the tough guy talk, he was too weak in critical instances. Reagan, by contrast, made the hard choices. He, for example, brought on the recession needed to tame raging inflation. One may hope Trump's p*ssed off enough and tough enough now to get done at least PART of what needs to be done; and to choose better advisors and staff this time. The Repubs have been known as a gentlemanly, country club party. No longer viable; it's a war now. They gotta get down in the trenches and face the lying, thuggish opposition with force and their own lawfare. 

 

That will mean pain and a LOT more hysteria (including here, LOL), as if it couldn't get worse. But, despite the affirmative action bimbos, he's got solid constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. At least he's not worried about being re-elected. If his party wins both houses, he needn't worry about more impeachment hoaxes.

 

 

Perhaps getting away from leftist news media and the regime talking points will be helpful. Hard to find; Google ignores alternatives. But brainwashed ain't no way to go through life, son. Here's a news aggregator. You can find more objective news and some intelligent, highly educated commentators there:

 

https://newsammo.com/

 

I read Victor Davis Hanson, among others, fairly often. Here's his Twitter feed:

 

https://twitter.com/VDHanson

 

How things have ended up under Biden:

 

A Culture in Collapse

 

This should address your morals concern; perhaps the morals on the other side should be of greater concern, esp when transgressions are ignored and politically privileged.

 

Lawfare Against Trump Is Running Out of Gas

 

Those jobs under Bidennomics: where do the majority come from? The Welfare-Industrial Complex

 

I trust that'll do. :)

 

 

Thanks for that. The following may seem like stock standard anti Trump stuff but here’s my opinion.

 Can’t go with the notion of  Trump as simply a tad more extreme or the loudest monkey. I note, for example,  that in the article about denying election results there is a clear difference between some somewhat valid comments and questioning of say the 2000 Florida result, that may be churlish at times but with no serious attempt to take the issue further, compared to Trump’s ongoing straight out outrageous refusal to accept that he lost based on nothing, leading to January 6 etc. 

I notice many who talk of Biden’s failings look in terms of poll numbers rather than what he has achieved – possibly because of the clearly strong economy. Inflation will always affect polls, and it hadn’t been helped by some early Biden spending and the effect of Biden’s strong economy, but had been overwhelmingly a worldwide problem brought on by the Covid spending, and is now coming down.

There have been failings . The border issue is serious. I note too that, after your Afghanistan article, Biden did of course leave, though no doubt the withdrawal was botched.

Biden’s age and communication skills impact his polls and prospects.

In the latter part of your thread we clearly part ways. To seemingly describe Biden and the Democrats as lying thugs, who have to be addressed by utilising the rule of law, seems incredibly ironic.  

I suppose some see Trump still as someone, who despite a bit of bravado and nonsense,  is deep down smart, and that is interests are consistent with the best interests of the nation.

The alternative view is that it is not overstated or deranged to see him as a potential threat to democracy and the rule of law. That’s a whole separate topic.  Take two examples though,  January 6 and  the fake electors scheme,  and  his treatment of highly classified records. 

If he had sufficient smarts, and control over his narcissism, he would have seen both were actions had been highly dangerous, and doomed to failure due to the dumb and hopeless way he went about things, causing himself and the country serious and unnecessary problems to deal with in the future.

9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

What alternatives do you have in mind?

I admit it is difficult because no one has stuck their neck out but nominees could be like Gavin Newsom or Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar - they all have their baggage I suppose. 

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Here's a question for you:

 

in order to preserve the US Social Security system, there are 2 principal approaches:

 

1 Raise the retirement age, or

 

2 Increase the cap on Social Security taxation from the current $168,000 to $250,000.

 

Which would you support?

If I am understanding it right 1 is bad for the older worker and 2 means more taxation for those on that income between 168 and 250. Australia has a different system in terms of social security - you don't contribute - it is means tested when you get to 67.

This is what I mean by being in the middle. On the one hand I think there should be a reward for those who work hard and save hard so they can retire independently and I can understand it irking some to have to pay taxes to support others who haven't done so.  But on the other hand I think there is some fairness to share the load around and make sure people can retire at a reasonable age with dignity. So somewhere in the middle.  

3 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Yes. Open to being a Republican if they stuck to the economics with a bit of heart thrown in but there's always so much nonsense that goes with their side of politics.

I consider myself in the middle in Australian politics which is to the left in American terms. I like Biden and his policies except get confused by things like immigration.  I sense in these pages the democrat leaning posters including myself sometimes are focusing on the anti Trump, which is easy fare, and not acknowledging that Biden has done well but, I could be wrong, four more years will be a very difficult sell to the electorate and Democrat alternatives make so much more sense. 

Added 'Democrat' alternatives in case the confused person thought I meant Republicans being the alternative. 

55 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Were you an Obama supporter?

Yes. Open to being a Republican if they stuck to the economics with a bit of heart thrown in but there's always so much nonsense that goes with their side of politics.

I consider myself in the middle in Australian politics which is to the left in American terms. I like Biden and his policies except get confused by things like immigration.  I sense in these pages the democrat leaning posters including myself sometimes are focusing on the anti Trump, which is easy fare, and not acknowledging that Biden has done well but, I could be wrong, four more years will be a very difficult sell to the electorate and Democrat alternatives make so much more sense. 

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Every Trumper on this thread focuses in on Biden, with adjectives such as doddering and incompetent.

They conveniently ignore the fact Biden surrounded himself with highly competent people. It shows in the economic data, and what his administration has got done.

OTOH, Trump hired toadies and yes-men, and fired anyone who tried to inject reason into his meetings. Then showered them with abuse after they were gone.

Only deeply insecure people behave the way Trump did. I guess his insecurity has gone exponential nowadays.

Biden is too old. His communication skills appear weak. This is for President. Emperor's new clothes and all that.

He may deep down have the skills but I can't see the electorate buying it. They'll ask how can we trust his judgement and vote for him if he himself cannot see he should not be running. 

I see his only chance if the opposition is totally damaged goods and I accept Trump may fit the bill. 

21 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If Americans want a dictator, they will get it in Trump. However, I wouldn't equate strong with someone who goofs off to play golf, and surrounds himself with sycophants.

IIRC Trump achieved nothing during his presidency. No wall, no successful trade war, no healthcare plan. In 2020, he did send the US into a 25% rise in debt to GDP ratio, which illustrates his penchant for borrowing.

Exactly. It's all pretense but let's hope enough voters see it the same way. My 2 cents though is that, say, Biden's approach to the border can make him seem indecisive or unsure, or someone trying to please too many, and his age exaggerates that notion.

On MSNBC a guy from the Atlantic was saying that for many swing voters, not that interested in politics, Trump is right now more of a memory, as they don't see the speeches that are no longer televised, or all the day to day stuff like news aficionados do. Those voters may be turned off when he's back at the forefront of the news again, with all the lies, and nonsense and rudeness. Add the court cases and that might be enough to make him electable only to the base. 

One of the reasons I gave Phuket the flick - not so much Karon but the stuff that was in the canals flowing on to Kata beach always looked appalling 

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

There is no way that Trump picks Haley!

His base sees her as a globalist and many will just stay home if he does that.

Biden's options may be bad but he has been a successful president and if it ends up Biden vs. Trump Biden is without any doubt at all the best choice.

Also consider -- the majority of Haley voters say they will vote for Biden over Trump.

It is not only possible but LIKELY that Trump will be convicted of a felony before the election.

So what?

This what. 30 percent of republicans will not support him in that case.

Could Trump win? Yes, he's a clear and present danger.

But in no way is he a shoo in. 

 

I think though if he picked Haley as Vice President nominee his fans would still think they are getting Trump who would be totally in control, with a sensible back up, that they could stomach. Besides his hardcore base I think many could not stomach Ramaswamy. 

I agree the legal stuff is still a huge threat but that's a given.

Biden can make things so much easier by stepping aside after an excellent 4 years. I liken him to Carter in 1980  - seen as a good man with good intentions  but not strong in the ways Americans like politicians to be strong. I notice in recent videos he looks seriously old - no disrespect intended because he has done great things and we can't control how we age - but I think it's a hard road with Biden whoever is the opponent.