This attitude of, "we just need someone who isn't Trump" isn't particularly helpful or reassuring to me. As someone who lives in the west (but not USA), I have a stake in your country being well led.
Trump does talk an insane amount of shit, no arguments there. But I'll never trust someone who can only talk from a script or provide highly rehearsed soundbites.
It isn't particularly reassuring to anyone. It's just the reality of the two choices that we have.
You're not seeing a bunch of people talking about Kamala's strengths as a leader, an orator, or anything else. She's just competent, and better than the alternative of Trump.
The idea that Trump would be a better leader is just absurd. He is extremely divisive, and contrary to popular belief, the president isn't a king. The president needs to be able to work with people in order to get things done.
Who does he surround himself with? How many of those people are in jail, or are in court? What do people from HIS OWN party say about him? Where is his former Vice President? Why did his CURRENT Vice President compare him to Hitler?
You would rather trust the bullshit that comes off the top of Trump's brain over someone that reads off a script?
The last four years have seen the world become a much more dangerous place - I don't think it's any coincidence that occurred with a weak, feeble leader in the White House. So I'm concerned by the prospect of him being replaced by more of the same (or worse). Say what you want about Trump (and be assured I'm no fan of his) but under him, your (our) foreign enemies were cowed. Now they are emboldened to invade neighbouring countries, undertake audacious terrorist attacks on your allies and attack international shipping lanes.
The "foreign enemies were scared of Trump/this wouldn't of happened under Trump!" argument is a silly way to think about foreign policy and politics.
"Trump does what the bad guys want/lets the bad guys do what they want, so there is no war" is trash foreign policy.
Obviously, there are going to be less conflicts if our president gives Putin what he wants. Obviously, North Korea is going to be more friendly to us if we publicly say that we should take our bases out of South Korea. Obviously, a right wing foreign government is going to want a right wing American government to be in power.
Why the hell should the United States of America and its citizens base our vote on what Putin or Kim Jeong Eun want? Make that make sense.
How does throwing away the Iran deal and assassinating one of their generals bring peace?
These arguments are based on SHORT term thinking and planning. They are also based off of one man, and not the country of the United States.
It's not Biden or Kamala that is going to be fighting on the battlefield, or sanctioning you, it's the United States. After Trump's term is done, someone else has to step in 4 years later.
We are a super power, regardless of who is in charge, we're not Macedonia or Bolivia.
Agree to disagree on the media, it looks thoroughly biased from where I stand.
The point isn't whether or not it's biased. You're cherrypicking what "media" is. Most people aren't watching CNN, they're looking at the internet and Youtube and social media.
Why do you think Trump is going on podcasts?
Saying that "the media is biased against Trump" is ignoring that Trump has himself to blame for why he gets the amount of attention that he gets. You make it sound like he is unfairly being picked on.
Kamala and Biden give the standard politician answer, and thus, it causes no controversy.
The other guy says "They're eating your cats and dogs!" "The blacks love me!" and "The media is the enemy of the people", and you act as if they should get the same level of attention.