politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Is this her answer to defending Biden’s age? I am patiently waiting to become president when he dies?
Isn't this what every vice president does? It's literally the job of the vice president.
I'm sure Pence was just waiting for Donnie to choke on a hamburger.
From New York city conman to whack a doodle evangelical... There truly was no upside.
I mean for every president it's a valid concern. Not everyone can live to 95.
Sure but this means the Biden administration is simultaneously saying that Biden is not too old to be president - but that if he does happen to die of old age then Kamala is ready to serve.
.
So the vice President is not the Biden administration now? This is getting curiouser and curiouser
.
No, I’m not. Biden’s age is a real concern among voters. Kamala said she is ready to serve.
That’s exactly what she is saying. She’s a politician. The vice presidents answer to responding to Biden’s concerns about age is that she is ready to serve. How do you not see that?
I get that you would rather have anyone else than trump.
The writing is on the wall and the democrat party is driving off the cliff to a trump win.
.
No. It's saying the obvious.
That the DOJ report saying Biden is too old and forgetful to be held accountable for anything is accurate? Because they sure seemed to be trying to fight it when it came out.
Do you always make up facts to sound smart?
😂
Reading the actual article, the context is not so awkward, at least not because she made it so.
The person asking the question specifically raised the "are you ready to serve if he can't?". The interviewer specifically took it there, rather than her voluntarily choosing to take the conversation there.