Sure but this means the Biden administration is simultaneously saying that Biden is not too old to be president - but that if he does happen to die of old age then Kamala is ready to serve.
It’s her response to an interview question. She’s not openly bragging about this, so I’m struggling to figure out why y’all stopped reading at the headline. The interviewer made it a thing, and she responded in kind. This isn’t “the Biden administration saying” anything.
You’re clearly trying to misinterpret the situation. The Administration isn’t coming out with some kind of position statement, as if they needed to make their official stance known. They’re not coordinating a message. She was directly asked if voters’ concerns mean she must convince them she’s ready to serve, and she responded with “there’s no question about that.”
You filled in the rest about them talking out of both sides of their mouths.
No, I’m not. Biden’s age is a real concern among voters. Kamala said she is ready to serve.
That’s exactly what she is saying. She’s a politician. The vice presidents answer to responding to Biden’s concerns about age is that she is ready to serve. How do you not see that?
I get that you would rather have anyone else than trump.
The writing is on the wall and the democrat party is driving off the cliff to a trump win.
That the DOJ report saying Biden is too old and forgetful to be held accountable for anything is accurate? Because they sure seemed to be trying to fight it when it came out.
Reading the actual article, the context is not so awkward, at least not because she made it so.
The person asking the question specifically raised the “are you ready to serve if he can’t?”. The interviewer specifically took it there, rather than her voluntarily choosing to take the conversation there.
Is this her answer to defending Biden’s age? I am patiently waiting to become president when he dies?
Isn’t this what every vice president does? It’s literally the job of the vice president.
I’m sure Pence was just waiting for Donnie to choke on a hamburger.
From New York city conman to whack a doodle evangelical… There truly was no upside.
I mean for every president it’s a valid concern. Not everyone can live to 95.
Sure but this means the Biden administration is simultaneously saying that Biden is not too old to be president - but that if he does happen to die of old age then Kamala is ready to serve.
It’s her response to an interview question. She’s not openly bragging about this, so I’m struggling to figure out why y’all stopped reading at the headline. The interviewer made it a thing, and she responded in kind. This isn’t “the Biden administration saying” anything.
So the vice President is not the Biden administration now? This is getting curiouser and curiouser
You’re clearly trying to misinterpret the situation. The Administration isn’t coming out with some kind of position statement, as if they needed to make their official stance known. They’re not coordinating a message. She was directly asked if voters’ concerns mean she must convince them she’s ready to serve, and she responded with “there’s no question about that.”
You filled in the rest about them talking out of both sides of their mouths.
No, I’m not. Biden’s age is a real concern among voters. Kamala said she is ready to serve.
That’s exactly what she is saying. She’s a politician. The vice presidents answer to responding to Biden’s concerns about age is that she is ready to serve. How do you not see that?
I get that you would rather have anyone else than trump.
The writing is on the wall and the democrat party is driving off the cliff to a trump win.
Ok chief.
No. It’s saying the obvious.
That the DOJ report saying Biden is too old and forgetful to be held accountable for anything is accurate? Because they sure seemed to be trying to fight it when it came out.
Do you always make up facts to sound smart?
😂
Reading the actual article, the context is not so awkward, at least not because she made it so.
The person asking the question specifically raised the “are you ready to serve if he can’t?”. The interviewer specifically took it there, rather than her voluntarily choosing to take the conversation there.