It will be featured in my r2, when posted [see IV.b of r2], but as it is not a critical feature of my argument, I will offer a sideline here in comments that is NOT part of my argument; just a little fun. Using a popular song from the broadway hit, "Hair" [1968], I. penned the following parody:
Joe’s Hair
Jill asks me why I’m such a hairy guy,
I’m hairy night and day, enough for you to buy,
I’m hairy high and low; don’t ask; don’t know
Just stroke it smooth, t’will rise and show…
So, Darlin, give me head with hair,
Such long, beautiful hair,
Shining, gleaming, sniffing, flaxen, wax on,
Turn on, give me hair down to there
Hair that thrills when you stare,
Hair, baby, hair, momma, hair wherever,
Hair----
Show it, but don’t mow it, God, can I grow it!
Flies in the breeze, tangles in the trees,
Give a home to the fleas, a hive for the bees,
A nest for the birds, don’t they love my sniffing yours,
There ain’t no words for the wonders of coiffeurs,
Legs, hairy, pits, hairy, everywhere I’m hairy, Harry.
Hair…
Voter suggestions are not sanctioned by any document within DA. Ergo, they are not used.
Unsourced outside references amount to violation and voters are not to consider content outside the debate arguments, themselves. That's in the voting policy. As you did not reference the outside content within the debate, it falls under this voter requirement. By the way, making reference in comments plus linkage that occurs outside the argument phase is not a reference to sources within the argument phase. You did not make you links until the argument phase concluded. They are, therefore, a violation of policy. That's the relevance, my friend.
The hostility is your use of justifications that do not exist within DA. The only documents outside of DA debate that are acceptable are sources. That includes your reference in your r4 to a prior debate of mine, which was not even within that debate, but in comments. Comments are outside debate parameters. That's not an acceptable reference, either within the debate arguments. You're not sourcing by voter suggestions, and you did not use your docs within the debate arguments as sources. Therefore, debate violation in my book. Sorry, rules are rules.
Now that this debate is over and done, I will comment on the feature I argued in my r2, I.a.3, and summarized/added to in my r4, I.a.4: "the debate proposal indicated that Adam and Eve were the first mating pair of H. sapiens. Therefore, the human genome, unfettered by an inferior genome of Neanderthals, was already extant. What happened to it after interbreeding with Neanderthals is whatever happened in terms of change to the genome, but this does not affect the proposal of the debate. It is a matter of simple logic. If ‘A’ is the human genome as expressed by Adam + Eve first generation offspring, and ‘B’ is ‘A100,000’ [an ‘A’ descendant] + Neanderthal, it follows that A ≠ B." Our singular voter did not see this.
This clearly stipulates the condition Con rebutted [poorly in my estimation], and as stated in the proposal, that "Adam & Eve contained the entire human genome" and I later presented in argument that the added mutating effect of interbreeding with Neanderthals downgraded the complete human genome. Started virtually perfect, and devolved. Devolution is a part of science, isn't it?
Wow! an actual argument in a final round giving voting suggestions. Asking by generic plea for votes in one's favor in the final round is one thing [which I did not do], but declaring victory throughout is quite another, and then concluding with suggestions on how to vote argument, sources, s&g and conduct? Sure, Why don't we just open-season the debate rules. One can clue voters with a primer on voting protocol. Wonder why I didn't think of that? Because I believe in debate and not stacking the deck. I believe in presenting the best argument possible and letting the voters decide who carried the better debate protocols. I believe debate rules stipulate a separation between debating and voting, with separate participants in each. Let's just open the rules and allow participants to vote along with "the community?" No, let's not.
I say to potential voters: read the context of all arguments. Vote on the basis of YOUR observations and not on anyone else's observations.
Re: my opponent's #8 post: as I said, I stated it in r1, Intro 1. It's in black & white. Obviously, by using the Holy Bible as a source, I am declaring it as a true source. That others may not believe this is up to them, even voters, who I will not offer suggestions on how to vote. I presume we're all adults, here.
Interesting that one of Pro's sources, Democracy at Work Institute speaks to greater advantage for people of color in coops, but the featured picture next to that very comment shows a group of whites. ???
I consider not pressing the advantage because if I inherently know the proposition is false, I'd prefer to not engage the debate. There's no risk, and therefore not much fun in such a scenario. Pro simply made a claim I know holds no water, and proving it is too damn easy. Never the less, RM did a superb job at it, and I don't often find an opportunity where he and I agree. I think I prefer the scenario where we do, because at least, even when we disagree, I find his arguments well reasoned from his perspective.
To date, this has been an excellent debate waged by both participants. I predict, regardless of outcome, that this debate will earn mention as a "quality debate."
Now y'all know why I declined to engage the debate. Being a Six Sigma Black Belt, retired, I know the proposition as presented is NOT impossible. I did not want to take unfair advantage by the knowledge, and Con skillfully represented my own thinking. Well done, RM. I have no hesitation, however, in voting on the debate.
I will not vote on this absurdity. Neither participant deserves a win; Con, because all rounds were forfeited, nor Pro because no argument, was ever posted, regardless of claim to do so in description, but also by r1 waive, and by blatant refusal to post an argument in r3, expecting a forfeiture by Con. Is this an acceptable "debate?" Not in my book. I'm surprised those who voted accept the behavior of Pro while denigrating the behavior of Con. I refer anyone's criticism to my post #1.
He may have ignored your question because he expects that if you're going to pull out your gun, he expects you to use it. Don't just talk about debating; either do it or don't. Talking about it is just premature efactulation.
I disagree with your statement about belief: "Beliefs are therefore inherently propositional; they all accept the truth of certain propositions. This means that all beliefs make claims about the nature of reality," particularly with regard to "...they all accept the truth of certain propositions." I don't think belief is required to accept any truth. This is what separates belief from truth. The curious thing about belief, as opposed to truth, is that belief does not require one to do anything about it. I can believe there are blue na'vi [see movie, Avatar], but I am not compelled to do anything about that belief; it makes no demands on me for justification.
I don't believe it would be giving away the store if I made the comment that that your post #3 implies, to me, that what I am attempting to prove is a common Christian ethic. In fact, I am not aware that any version of Christianity teaches this principle that the three attempted temptations on Satan's part were to represent anything but that Satan attempted three times to ensnare Christ. Nor do I really think these three attempts were the only time Jesus was tempted. For example, I believe, without any source whatsoever, but by mere implication, that Satan was present in Gethsemane. That, itself, might make an interesting debate. Although I've noted that Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" places Satan on the path to Golgotha. Where else would he be when his entire effort was being derailed by the significant event of the atonement? In an ice cream store? The thre-temptations-represent-all-sins is my own theory, only. Not sure anyone else has ever made the claim. It will be a difficult proof as a result.
"...that it's always the case that someone perhaps from a young age is programmed into something... [etc]. Yeah, the actual proposal without information in description is subjectless; poor construction. Con will pull something, however. This is a similar construct to another debate Con challenged, and wound up, in my view, shooting himself in the foot. I don't agree with Ragnar however, although Con's previous enterprise was shot by just that sort of ill-conceived logic, because a stillborn is not alive to live according to indoctrination. However, a wild child raised by wolves, for example, does fit the bill.
Something strange happened while I was entering my r3. The debate indicated to me that time has expired, but did not enter a forfeit in the argument 3rd round of my opponent, thus my beginning condolence. Don't know how it happened. please ignore my comment prior to "I. Rebuttal/Conclusion" I now recognize my opponent did not forfeit. System failure.
Took a minute to realize what a vote chain is.
My reply is: I did not read Lord of the Rings in the 60s like everybody else was. Not sorry, and not a conformist.
I lost? There are seven days, plus, left in voting. You don't win, and neither do I until the voting period is concluded. Being cocky usually ends with premature efactulation.
You don't get it. My concern is not how K_M voted; it's your post #17, and attitude since that is objectionable. That's entirely on you, my friend. Argue for your limitations; they're yours.
I did not post lightly. I may be, or may not be quoting a mod. You don't know, do you? Can't adequately argue what you don't know. As I said, watch it.
Voting policy: "Vote rigging is when someone solicits deliberately biased votes in order to rig the outcome of a vote. Votes stemming from vote rigging will be removed. It is not vote rigging to ask for someone to cast a fair vote."
Your post #17: "The mod made no mention of any problem with your arguments points. Perhaps you could re-vote it awarding argument points only." Looks like solicitation and bias, by suggesting K_M to vote again, and to ignore a four-point voting system to concentrate just on argument. He can, and should make those decision on his own without your suggestion. That's not a "fair vote." Or, would you like my to report it?
Mall's round 1 reiterates the description, but the description asks for "how" the one subject is likened to the other. I see no "how." Argument failure. Need a better argument than reiteration.
If one believes one round has sufficiently argued his point, and can conclude in round 2 that victory is his, why is the debate five rounds? Prediction of victory in an early round is a sure sign of lack of credibility, let alone a runaway emotion and a dizzy logic.
K_Michael has offered one true fallacy in this debate: Pro's three "arguments" have no subject of argument; the necessity of any argument.
One has credibility due to possession of...
One has emotion due to feeling of...
One has logic due to learning of... something exterior to each of these appeals, and not of the nature of any of them, alone.
Moreover, Pro has stumbled in the proposal and the description on two points:
1. Definition of prediction: as offered, it is meaningless in the secondary phrase, "...or will be a consequence of something;" the 'something' implying that an exterior force to credibility, emotion, or logic is in play, not the appeals themselves. That 'something' is the subject of an argument, such as offered by Con's r2.
2. Pro's debate proposal is: I can predict my opponent's future arguments," yet the description states he will win on prediction of just one of them. Pro cannot have it both ways, and has already lost by failing to predict Con's first argument - an argument Pro acknowledged he did not see coming. Yet, Pro's r2 declares he has already won. I will be interested in seeing Pro's explanation for Con's r2.
I completely disagree with your assessment of my argument. You have ignored my R1, arguments III.a through III.a.4. Consider them in light of your vote. You're supposed review all arguments.
Yeah, but User is my friend. I've whipped at him a few times, too. He takes it like a man, but I don 't like doing it. But if he wants old jokes, that's cool. If I can't laugh at myself, I've become useless.
Forgot - aere you saying by structure that there are no new arguments after first round? I can buy no new arguments last round, but I'd prefer argument for at least two rounds. Can do?
You do realize, my friend, that your arguments and voting designations mean the debate could endure 24 weeks to finish of voting. As of today, that means December 12; a month beyond the election. Hardly a germane debate in 24 weeks if the debate is calendared as of now [June 2020]. Wanna think abut shortening the cycle just to remain relevant?
As of now? maybe. As of election day... well, at some point, Ds are going to have to reconcile a candidate who...
- thinks he's running for the Senate
- likes children rubbing his hairy legs
- sniffs hair
- manhandles women and girls [while sniffing their hair]
- bragged that he had a Ukranian prosecutor fired, or he'd withhold $1B
- Says he will beat Joe Biden.
I really have to ask: When Joe Biden is elected, who will be the President?
It will be featured in my r2, when posted [see IV.b of r2], but as it is not a critical feature of my argument, I will offer a sideline here in comments that is NOT part of my argument; just a little fun. Using a popular song from the broadway hit, "Hair" [1968], I. penned the following parody:
Joe’s Hair
Jill asks me why I’m such a hairy guy,
I’m hairy night and day, enough for you to buy,
I’m hairy high and low; don’t ask; don’t know
Just stroke it smooth, t’will rise and show…
So, Darlin, give me head with hair,
Such long, beautiful hair,
Shining, gleaming, sniffing, flaxen, wax on,
Turn on, give me hair down to there
Hair that thrills when you stare,
Hair, baby, hair, momma, hair wherever,
Hair----
Show it, but don’t mow it, God, can I grow it!
Flies in the breeze, tangles in the trees,
Give a home to the fleas, a hive for the bees,
A nest for the birds, don’t they love my sniffing yours,
There ain’t no words for the wonders of coiffeurs,
Legs, hairy, pits, hairy, everywhere I’m hairy, Harry.
Hair…
©2019 by fauxlaw
Voter suggestions are not sanctioned by any document within DA. Ergo, they are not used.
Unsourced outside references amount to violation and voters are not to consider content outside the debate arguments, themselves. That's in the voting policy. As you did not reference the outside content within the debate, it falls under this voter requirement. By the way, making reference in comments plus linkage that occurs outside the argument phase is not a reference to sources within the argument phase. You did not make you links until the argument phase concluded. They are, therefore, a violation of policy. That's the relevance, my friend.
The hostility is your use of justifications that do not exist within DA. The only documents outside of DA debate that are acceptable are sources. That includes your reference in your r4 to a prior debate of mine, which was not even within that debate, but in comments. Comments are outside debate parameters. That's not an acceptable reference, either within the debate arguments. You're not sourcing by voter suggestions, and you did not use your docs within the debate arguments as sources. Therefore, debate violation in my book. Sorry, rules are rules.
Nice documents, but, unfortunately, neither exists within DebartArt.com documentation, therefore, relevance?
Now that this debate is over and done, I will comment on the feature I argued in my r2, I.a.3, and summarized/added to in my r4, I.a.4: "the debate proposal indicated that Adam and Eve were the first mating pair of H. sapiens. Therefore, the human genome, unfettered by an inferior genome of Neanderthals, was already extant. What happened to it after interbreeding with Neanderthals is whatever happened in terms of change to the genome, but this does not affect the proposal of the debate. It is a matter of simple logic. If ‘A’ is the human genome as expressed by Adam + Eve first generation offspring, and ‘B’ is ‘A100,000’ [an ‘A’ descendant] + Neanderthal, it follows that A ≠ B." Our singular voter did not see this.
This clearly stipulates the condition Con rebutted [poorly in my estimation], and as stated in the proposal, that "Adam & Eve contained the entire human genome" and I later presented in argument that the added mutating effect of interbreeding with Neanderthals downgraded the complete human genome. Started virtually perfect, and devolved. Devolution is a part of science, isn't it?
Wow! an actual argument in a final round giving voting suggestions. Asking by generic plea for votes in one's favor in the final round is one thing [which I did not do], but declaring victory throughout is quite another, and then concluding with suggestions on how to vote argument, sources, s&g and conduct? Sure, Why don't we just open-season the debate rules. One can clue voters with a primer on voting protocol. Wonder why I didn't think of that? Because I believe in debate and not stacking the deck. I believe in presenting the best argument possible and letting the voters decide who carried the better debate protocols. I believe debate rules stipulate a separation between debating and voting, with separate participants in each. Let's just open the rules and allow participants to vote along with "the community?" No, let's not.
I say to potential voters: read the context of all arguments. Vote on the basis of YOUR observations and not on anyone else's observations.
Re: my opponent's #8 post: as I said, I stated it in r1, Intro 1. It's in black & white. Obviously, by using the Holy Bible as a source, I am declaring it as a true source. That others may not believe this is up to them, even voters, who I will not offer suggestions on how to vote. I presume we're all adults, here.
Interesting that one of Pro's sources, Democracy at Work Institute speaks to greater advantage for people of color in coops, but the featured picture next to that very comment shows a group of whites. ???
I consider not pressing the advantage because if I inherently know the proposition is false, I'd prefer to not engage the debate. There's no risk, and therefore not much fun in such a scenario. Pro simply made a claim I know holds no water, and proving it is too damn easy. Never the less, RM did a superb job at it, and I don't often find an opportunity where he and I agree. I think I prefer the scenario where we do, because at least, even when we disagree, I find his arguments well reasoned from his perspective.
Yes, as stated in r1 intro 1.
To date, this has been an excellent debate waged by both participants. I predict, regardless of outcome, that this debate will earn mention as a "quality debate."
Now y'all know why I declined to engage the debate. Being a Six Sigma Black Belt, retired, I know the proposition as presented is NOT impossible. I did not want to take unfair advantage by the knowledge, and Con skillfully represented my own thinking. Well done, RM. I have no hesitation, however, in voting on the debate.
I will not vote on this absurdity. Neither participant deserves a win; Con, because all rounds were forfeited, nor Pro because no argument, was ever posted, regardless of claim to do so in description, but also by r1 waive, and by blatant refusal to post an argument in r3, expecting a forfeiture by Con. Is this an acceptable "debate?" Not in my book. I'm surprised those who voted accept the behavior of Pro while denigrating the behavior of Con. I refer anyone's criticism to my post #1.
Thank you, Bla.
Thank you for voting
He may have ignored your question because he expects that if you're going to pull out your gun, he expects you to use it. Don't just talk about debating; either do it or don't. Talking about it is just premature efactulation.
Far out. Good luck.
I disagree with your statement about belief: "Beliefs are therefore inherently propositional; they all accept the truth of certain propositions. This means that all beliefs make claims about the nature of reality," particularly with regard to "...they all accept the truth of certain propositions." I don't think belief is required to accept any truth. This is what separates belief from truth. The curious thing about belief, as opposed to truth, is that belief does not require one to do anything about it. I can believe there are blue na'vi [see movie, Avatar], but I am not compelled to do anything about that belief; it makes no demands on me for justification.
thanks for voting
Thank you for voting
References for Con r1:
1 https://www.thoughtco.com/historical-midterm-election-results-4087704
2 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp
3 https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=djia+today&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_protests_against_Donald_Trump
5 ibid
6 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-the-never-ending-story-of-the-jerusalem-embassy-move-1.5494231
7 https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/2012-voter-turnout/
8 https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/2019/11/19/a-field-guide-to-polling-election-2020-edition/
9 The Six Sigma Black Belt Certification Manual, June 2018 edition, The Council for Six Sigma Certification.
10 ibid
11 ibid
12 ibid, and https://www.checkmarket.com/sample-size-calculator/
13 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/
14 ibid
15 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/
16 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/trump-jerusalem-embassy-middle-east-peace.html
17 https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-trump-kim-summit-20180611-story.html
18 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-history/trumps-tax-cut-wont-be-the-biggest-in-u-s-history-idUSKBN1D223O
19 https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/aug/01/donald-trump-said-hes-done-more-african-americans-/
20 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/01/was-obamas-1-7-billion-cash-deal-with-iran-prohibited-by-u-s-law/
21 https://theconversation.com/why-the-uss-1994-deal-with-north-korea-failed-and-what-trump-can-learn-from-it-80578
22 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-debt-downgrade/united-states-loses-prized-aaa-credit-rating-from-sp-idUSTRE7746VF20110807
23 https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=djia+today&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Thank you for voting
I don't believe it would be giving away the store if I made the comment that that your post #3 implies, to me, that what I am attempting to prove is a common Christian ethic. In fact, I am not aware that any version of Christianity teaches this principle that the three attempted temptations on Satan's part were to represent anything but that Satan attempted three times to ensnare Christ. Nor do I really think these three attempts were the only time Jesus was tempted. For example, I believe, without any source whatsoever, but by mere implication, that Satan was present in Gethsemane. That, itself, might make an interesting debate. Although I've noted that Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" places Satan on the path to Golgotha. Where else would he be when his entire effort was being derailed by the significant event of the atonement? In an ice cream store? The thre-temptations-represent-all-sins is my own theory, only. Not sure anyone else has ever made the claim. It will be a difficult proof as a result.
Thanks for voting
Subject to my acceptance and approval of the kritik. Perhaps it should be communicated by PM rather than in comments
Thanks for voting
"...that it's always the case that someone perhaps from a young age is programmed into something... [etc]. Yeah, the actual proposal without information in description is subjectless; poor construction. Con will pull something, however. This is a similar construct to another debate Con challenged, and wound up, in my view, shooting himself in the foot. I don't agree with Ragnar however, although Con's previous enterprise was shot by just that sort of ill-conceived logic, because a stillborn is not alive to live according to indoctrination. However, a wild child raised by wolves, for example, does fit the bill.
That was a good debate. I'm glad you did not forfeit the last round.
Thank you all for voting
Didn't mean to leave you off. Just discovered can't have more than five recipients. Who knew? Thanks for voting.
Thank you all for voting, much appreciated.
Trent, it's all good, not like I need the points, just wondered
Something strange happened while I was entering my r3. The debate indicated to me that time has expired, but did not enter a forfeit in the argument 3rd round of my opponent, thus my beginning condolence. Don't know how it happened. please ignore my comment prior to "I. Rebuttal/Conclusion" I now recognize my opponent did not forfeit. System failure.
Took a minute to realize what a vote chain is.
My reply is: I did not read Lord of the Rings in the 60s like everybody else was. Not sorry, and not a conformist.
I lost? There are seven days, plus, left in voting. You don't win, and neither do I until the voting period is concluded. Being cocky usually ends with premature efactulation.
You don't get it. My concern is not how K_M voted; it's your post #17, and attitude since that is objectionable. That's entirely on you, my friend. Argue for your limitations; they're yours.
Did I claim his vote was biased? No, I said you encouraged a biased vote by suggesting how to vote. Get it?
I did not post lightly. I may be, or may not be quoting a mod. You don't know, do you? Can't adequately argue what you don't know. As I said, watch it.
Voting policy: "Vote rigging is when someone solicits deliberately biased votes in order to rig the outcome of a vote. Votes stemming from vote rigging will be removed. It is not vote rigging to ask for someone to cast a fair vote."
Your post #17: "The mod made no mention of any problem with your arguments points. Perhaps you could re-vote it awarding argument points only." Looks like solicitation and bias, by suggesting K_M to vote again, and to ignore a four-point voting system to concentrate just on argument. He can, and should make those decision on his own without your suggestion. That's not a "fair vote." Or, would you like my to report it?
A chickenshyte tactic.
Your encouragement to K_Michael to vote again, even with suggestion how to vote, borders on vote rigging. Watch it.
Mall's round 1 reiterates the description, but the description asks for "how" the one subject is likened to the other. I see no "how." Argument failure. Need a better argument than reiteration.
If one believes one round has sufficiently argued his point, and can conclude in round 2 that victory is his, why is the debate five rounds? Prediction of victory in an early round is a sure sign of lack of credibility, let alone a runaway emotion and a dizzy logic.
Thank you for voting
So, just to be clear, are we having arguments for 2 rounds, or more, along with rebuttals beginning r2? Don't want to blow it in r3.
K_Michael has offered one true fallacy in this debate: Pro's three "arguments" have no subject of argument; the necessity of any argument.
One has credibility due to possession of...
One has emotion due to feeling of...
One has logic due to learning of... something exterior to each of these appeals, and not of the nature of any of them, alone.
Moreover, Pro has stumbled in the proposal and the description on two points:
1. Definition of prediction: as offered, it is meaningless in the secondary phrase, "...or will be a consequence of something;" the 'something' implying that an exterior force to credibility, emotion, or logic is in play, not the appeals themselves. That 'something' is the subject of an argument, such as offered by Con's r2.
2. Pro's debate proposal is: I can predict my opponent's future arguments," yet the description states he will win on prediction of just one of them. Pro cannot have it both ways, and has already lost by failing to predict Con's first argument - an argument Pro acknowledged he did not see coming. Yet, Pro's r2 declares he has already won. I will be interested in seeing Pro's explanation for Con's r2.
I completely disagree with your assessment of my argument. You have ignored my R1, arguments III.a through III.a.4. Consider them in light of your vote. You're supposed review all arguments.
Nope, you're all good [except for your position in this debate, but, what else am I going to say about that?]
Yeah, but User is my friend. I've whipped at him a few times, too. He takes it like a man, but I don 't like doing it. But if he wants old jokes, that's cool. If I can't laugh at myself, I've become useless.
Forgot - aere you saying by structure that there are no new arguments after first round? I can buy no new arguments last round, but I'd prefer argument for at least two rounds. Can do?
Much better, but fair warning; I'm not going to take a week for arguments.
You do realize, my friend, that your arguments and voting designations mean the debate could endure 24 weeks to finish of voting. As of today, that means December 12; a month beyond the election. Hardly a germane debate in 24 weeks if the debate is calendared as of now [June 2020]. Wanna think abut shortening the cycle just to remain relevant?
I am an old man. I don't take umbrage with obvious facts. However, with age, comes experience. I'll take it to latent knowledge any day.
As of now? maybe. As of election day... well, at some point, Ds are going to have to reconcile a candidate who...
- thinks he's running for the Senate
- likes children rubbing his hairy legs
- sniffs hair
- manhandles women and girls [while sniffing their hair]
- bragged that he had a Ukranian prosecutor fired, or he'd withhold $1B
- Says he will beat Joe Biden.
I really have to ask: When Joe Biden is elected, who will be the President?