First, the author of the piece made sure that he thought Trump was as bad or worse than Biden.
Second, he perpetuates the lie that Biden was a “decent” man.
Third, after spending paragraphs describing how a superpower cannot run on autopilot, he does NOT state that Biden should resign, but should simply not run again.
Fourth, he gives no replacement name. You cannot replace something with nothing, and you also cannot replace nothing with nothing.
Here’s the part that is unstated: If Biden resigns, Kamala Harris gets the spot. If she is the sitting President, she gets the campaign spot. She is not an interim NFL head coach.
The author also ignores the fact that replacing the top spot without Kamala will fracture the party, and kill the whole ticket, not just the top spot. A lot of Democrats who can live through a Trump win cannot survive a party fracture.
“Economist” Republicans are like National Review Republicans, only even MORE globalist. They are an unwanted breed.
Re: 13 - the point is to be able to practice the art of discernment. People that are adept at discernment can look through / beyond the article and perhaps gain new insight.
Probably not known widely is that The Economist was since 2022 writing that Biden should not run for reelection. Why? Well, discernment helps to answer that question.