frazw

Maybe if they weren't destabilising the world, their citizens might feel happier about bringing children into it.

I know what the point was, but Biden is included as if he is part of some political dynasty. He was VP. A very normal situation, 19 out of 49 have run for president. It's like being promoted through the ranks until you get to the top. Isn't that kinda normal in most careers?

So why is it "insanely improbable" for Biden, someone who qualified for the job over decades, to be "chosen" as opposed to anyone else.

We aren't talking here about how much cash it requires to become president which raises the bar above most people's head.we are taking about political dynasties.

So I say again, including Biden as if it is some statistical anomaly or stranglehold on politics is disingenuous, especially if you exclude Harris.

Her situation of running for president after serving as vice president is EXACTLY the same as Biden unless you want to split hairs and say he served 2 terms and her only 1. So if you want to say Biden was given a silver spoon, so was she.

Biden is not a dynasty. But if you insist he is, so is Harris, and that makes the original premise flawed.

I don't think it's really fair to include "Biden" alongside "Bush" and "Clinton" and NOT include "Harris", just to make a point. The point is the Bush and Clinton represent two people each, a dynasty as it were. Biden is just one person. You might as well add then Harris since she has served as VP just like Biden, or Trump but I get the feeling this is intended to somehow make the statement that Harris represents a new breed of politics, a break from the old. That may or may not be true, but it doesn't hinge on this meaningless metric.

"since 1981 there has never been an election without a Bush, Clinton, Biden, Trump or Harris."

I love to see free speech absolutism being so unshakable.

I'd buy that for a dollar

Surely the day is approaching where enough Americans have been personally affected by gun violence that there are more that have than haven't. I often wondered if the reason it persists is because it is something that happens to other people so there is no feeling of urgency to put it at the center of politics. But it happens every fucking ~~month~~??? ...wait, I just checked and I'm being too generous with "month". They happen almost every day. We only seem to hear about them once or twice a month outside America. You guys have them more regularly than sports games.

You think the only reason people could find destructive, violent behaviour to be unusual or difficult to understand is because they have no passion in their own lives?

I'm just a little sad that there are people in the world who have grown up in such violent, loveless homes that they can't conceive of finding violent behaviour over a sports game disgusting.

I wonder how many of wives and partners who get the shit kicked out of them when their passionate "alpha" male's favourite team loses would agree with you. Oh it's OK, he had just lived such a full, passionate life that he sometimes loses his self control for a moment.

How can you possibly think you are on the right side of things as you call in a bomb threat on a school?

I just don't understand how these people can think their tactics are morally justified.

They wanted the IP not the staff.

I don't know if I'm a millennial or generation x

And maybe this answer is kinda what I was thinking of. The justification your are supplying about the diminished influence of record labels makes sense and logically I can see that probably means the sound of the decades I listed was less organic and more manufactured. I also feel that there is probably less air for experimental genres to establish and become dominant like in the past.

Thank you but if the discussion does start going toxic, please do take it down.