Start with the green new deal (destroy commerce and empower megacorporations who can afford compliance), continue with a healthy serving of 2nd amendment dismantling (assault weapons ban, red flag laws, etc), see above for assaults on the first amendment, dismantling ICE, the list goes on. The funny thing about Biden is I can literally just point you at his congress.gov page. To be fair to Biden though, his switch from moderate left to far left marxist radical happened almost overnight. "New Neomarxist Biden" is a hard nut to crack. Counterpoint - what in Trump's platform is going to dismantle democratic institutions? You've managed to swap topics from Biden to Trump. Clever debate trick. Ball's in your court, bub. I'll head you off on your first turn. Building a wall isn't dismantling democratic institutions and COVID was left to the governors to respond to. Tell you what, I sure do enjoy my stellar market, tax breaks, and the ability to drive my dino fuel car without paying a luxury tax.
Bunch of swampsters who are afraid that what they did while they were in office will continue to be examined, but that it will end if Joe is elected. Trust me, I believe them when they say they want Joe to be elected. Also some of them may not have participated in wrongdoing but they left office when the dems who appointed them left and Trump came into power- that is to say, they are not really retired. They are just waiting for a dem administration to return so that they can return.
Not a debate trick. OP was about Trump being fundamentally unqualified for office. You keep throwing out red herrings to switch it to a debate about policies (btw the market did great while Obama was killing coal and subsidizing electric vehicles). It's fine to debate the impacts of the green new deal, immigration, etc. But these are policies that would be legitimate if duly elected representatives chose to pass them. An assault rifle ban would have to pass congress and be subject to judicial review (as it was in '94)--Biden isn't just going to order the army to come take your guns. It's hard to keep track. For starters, attacking the electoral process, using the power of the office to attack political opponents and enrich allies, and intervening in criminal cases. Just as serious is the general degradation of democratic norms by embracing divisive conspiracy theories and attacking the press. Can you name a functioning democracy where the president calls the press the enemy of the people? Can you make a similar statement about any Biden policy? I interpret any recent shift as an olive branch to the left so they don't stay home like last time. We'll see as the campaign progresses what gets emphasized. I see no chance of anything radical getting passed even if Dems take the Senate. There are plenty of swing state Dems that take lobbyist money and want to be reelected. Remember Obama couldn't get single payer through even with a super majority.
Please. No sermonettes on functioning democracies with the purpose of portraying Obama/Biden and Biden as upholders of such. Biden was up to his arse in Obama administration attempts to spy on trump's campaign and to block him from becoming the duly elected president. And on the way out the door Obama, Biden, Rice, Yates, etc coordinated to make sure the effort continued.
If the traitorous actions of those in the deep state happened in another country where they had strict laws against treason, those guilty would have been charged, tried and executed. Only in the US can anyone connected with the Deep State try to remove a duly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump? That is treason with two bogus impeachment attempts that failed, still treason.
Two scenarios: 1) The Obama/Biden/deep state spied on Trump's campaign yet inexplicably chose not to make the incriminating findings public prior to the election, meanwhile permitting the head of the FBI to publicly conduct an investigation into Clinton (for which Trump did fire him under similar circumstances). 2) In the interest of not appearing to be intervening in the election, Obama chose not to publicize an ongoing investigation and to allow the FBI director to operate independently. If you choose to believe the former scenario there's no point debating.
Yeh, well. You sort of bypassed the whole part about whether they even had a valid basis for launching or continuing an investigation in the first place and whether it was a politically motivated investigation I will leave it to Barr and Durham to bring you up to speed.