That Joe Biden is “too old” was only one argument against his presidency. Of course, “too old” was merely code for “too mentally deficient” to be President. News flash: Joe was too mentally deficient for the job even before senility became an issue. Given his policies, if Joe were not the senile bumbler that he is, would America be better off – as he has led us towards tyranny and corruption?
Barack Obama allegedly said: “Never underestimate Joe’s ability to eff things up.” – though his word choice was slightly more colorful. Would America be better off, if Joe didn’t “eff up” as he
- Sold influence,
- Opened our country to invasion,
- Crashed our economy,
- Undermined our Constitution,
- Empowered our enemies, and
- Imposed DEI on the nation?
That’s why I would have preferred to have focused on his policies, rather than the “who’s too old and who isn’t” debate we’ve been obsessed with for the past month
But I get it. As Sun Tzu advised: one wins by striking where the opponent is weak. So, everyone went after Joe’s glaring mental weakness and put off the policy debate for another day. Well now another day has arrived.
Joe is allegedly off the ticket and his mental state is no longer an issue for voters to worry about. He’ll soon be replaced with someone determined to implement all of the same policies he did, and they’ll do it without stumbling around the stage like they’re lost.
But we had better prepare to shift the debate from Joe’s personal weakness, to the ideological flaws in the in the left’s proposals. That should be easy to do, given that Joe gave the radicals everything they wanted, and it made our lives worse.
Whomever the Dems settle on after their nomination cage match is going to look good (unless it’s Hillary) and be able to speak without screaming, mumbling, slurring, or whispering (all bets are off on inappropriate giggling though). He/she/xe is going to promise the same policies that Joe Biden did, and he/she/xe will promise to implement those policies without the signature bidenesque incompetence.
We had better prepare to win the debate that
- Control of national borders isn’t racist, it’s essential;
- Science is a matter of observation, not consensus;
- True evil exists and is not a matter of contextualization;
- Loss of individual liberty is the cost of social justice;
- Capitalism benefits everyone, while socialism benefits only the government (and those it protects);
- Government spending inevitably slows rather than stimulates the economy; and
- Being an American is a thing of pride.
Author Bio: John Green is a retired engineer and political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He spent his career designing complex defense systems, developing high performance organizations, and doing corporate strategic planning. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA