How bad do you want to roll those odds on trump getting elected again?
Also, who are you supporting for president this time round, and what do you figure their chances are of winning?
Are you talking about Truman? One guy who started to seek the presidency, after serving 1.5 terms, and then pulling out before being the presumptive nominee? I don’t think history is on your side for this one.
Also, answer the questions please.
Edit: You actually said “We have absolutely aborted the campaigns of incumbent presidents before.” Implying that the candidate did not win their nomination. Let’s go ahead and put those goalposts back where they were initially.
Clearly you don’t understand what a whataboutism is.
Your position was logically indefensible, which I have demonstrated (without your answers, or lack thereof, to my original challenge) even after you moved the goalposts. If you wish to discuss this further, you’ll need to clear the initial (very low) bar I laid out for honest discourse. It’s time you put some skin in the game, instead of polluting my screen with vacuous replies from the safety of political/social anonymity.
Once… Over 100 years ago…
https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2009/07/a_president_denied_renominatio.html
How bad do you want to roll those odds on trump getting elected again? Also, who are you supporting for president this time round, and what do you figure their chances are of winning?
I said aborted the campaign, not lost the nomination. Usually the candidates have the good sense to bow out before that happens.
Are you talking about Truman? One guy who started to seek the presidency, after serving 1.5 terms, and then pulling out before being the presumptive nominee? I don’t think history is on your side for this one.
Also, answer the questions please.
Edit: You actually said “We have absolutely aborted the campaigns of incumbent presidents before.” Implying that the candidate did not win their nomination. Let’s go ahead and put those goalposts back where they were initially.
There’s no implication there. The words mean exactly what they say.
Alright, so your position is invalid. Before moving on, please answer my original questions.
I’m glad you unilaterally decided that.
Actually, you decided that.
Answer the questions already.
I’m not going to engage in whataboutism.
Clearly you don’t understand what a whataboutism is.
Your position was logically indefensible, which I have demonstrated (without your answers, or lack thereof, to my original challenge) even after you moved the goalposts. If you wish to discuss this further, you’ll need to clear the initial (very low) bar I laid out for honest discourse. It’s time you put some skin in the game, instead of polluting my screen with vacuous replies from the safety of political/social anonymity.