@dancamper @dlakelan
It's a funny quote, but it also makes light of serious differences among two candidates in what I believe is the first US election where the two major candidates we're deciding between have already been President. It says both are not qualified, and some would say "equally unqualified", under the prism it offers.
Worse, once one shrugs off the uselessness of that criteria, they're left realizing that both candidates have historical data voters can look at. Many pundits have used this almanac approach, but it's VERY dangerous.
If the past were predictor, we could elect that almanac. I've seen many say "I liked it when he was President before, I want more if that". But it will not be a repeat in either case.
First the backdrop will be different. Climate will be worse, to take one example. Trump and GOP try to see Climate as a political concoction, but it's not. More like a progressing cancer. They want to undo preparation even as the world situation metastasizes. By contrast, while I happen not to think that Biden has done nearly enough, he's done materially better, and would still move forward, even if too timidly. Centrism can be dangerous here. BUT if my choice is move backward or move forward way too slowly, there's a HUGE difference there, andcthe choice is clear, even as neither of those choices will be a replay of the past.
Also, Trump tried to dismantle democracy. Many in GOP joined that goal, and some support him because they are oblivious tribal members or they are terrified of his wrath or dazzled by hopes of riches. But Democracy is a tree halfway chopped down. A repeat of that won't leave us in the same place as we think we saw before. It willl leave us with an autocracy. Democracy would finish falling under Trump. Biden wouldn't fix all I'd wish, but he'd do better.
In spite of the Adams quote, which has an element of truth, Biden has spent a lifetime trying to be of service. He's not my perfect candidate, but he IS qualified. Especially compared to the alternative.
We live in a world full if contradiction, having learned in school that a contradiction is the key to disqualifying a logical argument, including an argument about why someone should be President. We are led by hucksters to too easily disqualify good candidates, and to too easily tolerate bad ones. We must stop looking to easy jabs and think more deeply.
I get that this was just a joke, but beware the power of jokes to dismiss good people and sustain horribly evil ones. Seriously.