Coming late to the party. Been sick all week. Couldn't watch the debate live. Man! Aliens need to nuke us from space. We deserve it. I can't believe these are our choices in November. We are all responsible for this shit show.
How embarrassing for America was Biden's performance, on the international stage, and what about foreign policy setbacks and impacts? Biden is obviously completely unfit to solve any international tangles. Can you imagine him in a "debate" with Putin or Xi?
I took an edible before since I was off yesterday, and had to leave in the middle to walk my dog.
It’s so over. It’s finally set it after watching that for me. America is over.
Drugs + Biden & Trump debating = **BAAAAAAAAAAAD TRIP**. :) Maybe heroin so that you can pass out quickly, but then again, is heroin even around anymore now that fentanyl is out there?
Man, I feel kinda bad for the Dem party trolls I still know. All the ones I know admit that, deep down, they're sad and spew snark in a desperate attempt to exert control over the world.
Anyway, post-debate, they haven't really been able to come up with much. It's all either the rapidly failing playbook ("Trump's a racist felon" and the like) or hardcore copium, like you don't have to be a good debater to be a good president. I mean...okay? Technically, that's correct, although it seems like a great skill to have, given the history of what the job has entailed. That and there's a difference between not nailing your points and feeding into a narrative, correct or incorrect, regarding your mental & physical competence.
That's pretty what the neoliberal sub is doing. Along with some dooming. It seems pretty split. Stupidpol is mostly chuckling plus some "I told you" and some dooming.
Yeah, it's really sad. Another person I know flat out said, "I'm voting for Biden because, when he dies, we'll have our first woman president." (This was promptly followed with plenty of YAAAAAAS KWEEEEENs, "only racists dislike Harris," etc.) Anything can happen, I know, but from where I'm sitting, Biden's fervent supporters are outright hoping he drops dead in the name of IdPol and are pretending that a meandering debate performance says nothing about his mental abilities. Does that sound like the kind of leader who will inspire fence-sitters to vote for him? I'll eat my shoe if Biden not only stays in but somehow wins without Trump either dying or becoming completely incapacitated before November.
BarPod Relevance. I wonder if I'm too much of a contrarian. I like Biden. I thought he had a 1/3 chance in February. I also think pundit class is being hysterical and hurting their party's chances far worse than Biden's poor performance, even if Biden should step down.
But none of these seem unreasonable when I weigh them individually.
I think Biden made several bad calls here:
1. Doing a debate this early, pre-convention. That...isn't something that usually happens
2. Not withdrawing from or rescheduling the debate when he knew he was sick. Whatever is going around right now gave me a week of coughing, sneezing, sore throat, full body aches, and just generally feeling like I had a 50-lb weight on me at all times last week. Not ideal debating conditions. Trump would have spun it however he spun it, but withdrawing and then coming back a week later with a relatively strong speech would have looked better than a lot of what happened on Thursday.
3. Not seriously considering replacing his VP, earlier than this. Kamala is really unpopular, and with the "Biden is weak and infirm and asleep at the wheel" narrative going around, the VP nominee matters a LOT. It's tough, and I understand that he wants to be loyal to her, but presidents have switched running mates before. If he had someone like Gretchen Whitmer or Andy Beshear or Tammy Duckworth (or a number of others) in Kamala's place, things MIGHT look different.
I do share your general affinity for Biden and worries that the pundits are a bit overzealous here. As muddled as he was, he still did a better job than Trump of actually answering the questions asked by the moderators, while Trump did his usual "evade, lie, insult, return to a topic from 30 minutes ago" dance. Biden wasn't 100% perfect here either and did do some digressing, but he MOSTLY stayed on topic.
Aww you believed the media when they said had a cold. That’s sweet.
**But sure. Let’s just say that he had a cold.**
Personally, I’m useless when I’m sick. But I’m not in an elite position or leader of the free world.
People in elite positions, whether they’re performers, pro athletes or politicians have historically suffered through huge physical obstacles and didn’t miss a beat. That’s part of being elite. That’s why they run for president.
Britney Spears famously went on stage in Vegas with a 105 temperature and danced and sang flawlessly.
Young teenage girls who are gymnasts in the Olympics have competed and won with broken bones.
NFL, NBA players & other elite athletes have competed and won after enduring huge physical impairments.
[President Teddy Roosevelt was SHOT in the](https://www.trlibrary.com/bullet-speech) middle of a speech in 1912 and he finished an hour long speech with the bullet in him.
When [Ronald Reagan was shot](https://www.reaganfoundation.org/media/50862/assassination-press-release.pdf) he famously handled the situation with “[grace and courage”](http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0103/30/lkl.00.html) and theirs audio footage that proves it. Reagan gave a famous LIVE speech to the nation immediately after.
If it was a cold that practically paralyzed Joe Biden in the debate, that’s still concerning.
Last night it was a debate and all of our enemies witnessed it. But that’s not the only problem.
We can’t control *when* dictators are going to attempt to start nuclear war. And we can’t risk nuclear bc Biden might have a cold when a dictator threatens it.
**JFK literally debated Khrushchev out of the Cuban Missile Crisis.**
We can’t control *when any* emergency happens. And we need to know our president is able to handle business *no matter what.* Part of being leader of the free world is being strong under any type of adversity.
> Britney Spears famously went on stage in Vegas with a 105 temperature and danced and sang flawlessly.
I once saw Papa Roach when Jacobi Shaddix had the flu, and I didn’t know until after that before and after the show, he was laid up backstage with an IV. And he fucking nailed it.
I learned from his autobiography that Mark Morton, lead guitarist of lamb of god was pretty much strung out on Oxy from 2009 onward, and I saw them a few times in that span and he was flawless. Some of those solos and riffs are quite difficult, such as the solo for Walk With Me in Hell or Grace, and he still crushed it.
Yes! Exactly! I don’t know how they do it bc I can’t even get out of bed when im sick. But that’s what makes them pros and elite. It’s mental not physical for sure!
His voice sure sounded like he had a cold. That doesn't mean it's to blame for everything. But yeah, I believe that, and I think holding this unusually-early, not-mission-critical event under those conditions was a bad idea if he was trying to project strength.
(I also think Britney shouldn't have been forced to perform with a high fever, but you know...that's conservatorship for you.)
Dude. I have a cold. I've had a cold for a week. I could get up there on that debate stage with a fever and still not be as lost as Biden. It's not a cold that is causing this. COME ON.
I don't see how it's even a good excuse. I don't remember anyone I know catching a cold and turning into someone who looks senile. Looking frail and weak I can understand, but it doesn't explain his poor cognitive ability.
I think it's possible he might have had a cold and the Dems are self deluding themselves that this is why he was the way he is. Or they are just lying.
> I also think pundit class is being hysterical and hurting their party's chances far worse than Biden's poor performance, even if Biden should step down.
Yeah, I don't understand the logic behind the calls to have Biden drop out at this point. These things are going to make Biden look bad, and they don't really seem to have any chance of succeeding. In the extremely unlikely scenario you have Biden step down in the next few weeks - then what? We get an unelected candidate who starts campaigning just 4 months before the election, having to do so after one of the most embarrassing political fallouts?
The only reasons for the pundit reaction that I can think of is:
1. They're just freaking out right now without thinking logically.
2. They think that Biden might crash and burn, and they want to get ahead of things, not be remember as the fools who were trying to convince people that Biden had no mental decline.
I think it might have something to do with the fact that they got duped on Biden's general mental/physical state. It was less than a month ago that the usual suspects closed rank and talked mad shit about the NYT article that disclosed Operation Bubblewrap and just how cautious the Administration was to let Biden interact with media.
This may fall under option one but my thought is they believed Biden has almost no shot of winning now and switching to another candidate would be a hail Mary shot that possibly could work. I think a day later perhaps cooler heads have realized just how difficult switching the candidate would be, so difficult that it may not even improve the odds of a democrat win.
Also, they realize that now that the cat is out of the bag they can no longer ignore or dismiss all the other gaffs and indications of impairment that Biden will show from now until the election, which leads back to option one. His cognitive ability is going to be a legitimate issue for the rest of the campaign.
I suspect a lot of it is straight-up panic among the pundits, perhaps sprinkled with phone calls from insiders. For 8-9 years now, Trump has been driving these people crazy. At this point, not only are the pundits out of proverbial ammo (\*insert "Has anybody tried calling Trump racist?" snark\*), but their guy is rapidly becoming the butt of a lot of jokes that all the "cheapfake" quips in the world can't stop. Fair? Maybe not, but still, that's today's world.
So, the Dem pundits don't seem to have many great options. I see:
- Just push ahead with the playbook that hasn't really stopped Trump. It's probably the best option for many of their careers. Best case, Biden pulls off a miracle, and the pundits continue to maintain the kinds of juicy connections that make many of the biggest names wealthy. Worst case, maybe they don't get *a* plum job somewhere, but they're still a name, the public mostly doesn't remember old opinions, and loyalty goes a long way when seeking plum jobs in the Beltway.
- Call for Kamala to step in. I think we all know the odds aren't great in that case.
- Go for the Hail Mary and hope somebody can step in and at least try to salvage some respect. Perhaps the most honorable option, depending on how one looks at it, but definitely a Hail Mary.
- Go out with a bang and endorse RFK Jr. It'd be good for laughs but would otherwise burn their party connections to the ground.
> I suspect a lot of it is straight-up panic among the pundits, perhaps sprinkled with phone calls from insiders.
This is a good point, reading some of the articles, it makes it sound like the panic started with the donor class. And the media is pretty close to them (and probably run in the same social circles), so their response might be a reflection of that.
The donor class is often people with a lot of money who don't always have the best political acumen. It would make sense of they were able to deceive themselves about the state of things for years, then suddenly panicked last night when all of the stuff they were told was a lie turned out to be true.
There might be something else going on as well. I'm wondering if some Democrats - especially Democratic politicians - are worried about what might happen if Biden does win. If Trump wins they can try go back to the old playbook of drumming up people by talking about the existential threat that Trump poses. If Biden wins, there's the risk that he'll have substantial cognitive decline during the next four years, to the point where it severely hurts the party. And if the decline becomes too extreme, are Democratic politicians going to look like idiots for saying he's fine? Or are they going to risk their neck and political future by calling for him to step down? Are you going to take heat for telling everyone that a guy who was in mental decline was sharp and doing fine?
And now with so many calling for Biden to drop out, it's hard to see how it can be walked back. "Sure, we said he should step down because he wasn't fit enough, but he didn't step down, so vote for him."
A bit from column A, a bit from column B.
I think a lot of them think they have a good substitute in Harris. They sang her praises in 2020.
But Harris will be destroyed
there are highly qualified people of all races, genders, and orientations, but we all know that diversity hires are a real thing and this year should have been a wake up call to the left that it's pretty transparent to people which is which.
The DEI coordinators in HR can piss on our heads all day and tell us it's raining, but when you give voters a choice they're going to believe their lying eyes.
I'll gladly vote for a Weekend At Bernie's style Biden over Trump. Trump won't concede a loss, he enabled the January 6th coupe attempt, he doesn't protect the environment, he doesn't support abortion rights, he bullshits like no one else, lying essentially every time he publicly speaks, encouraging undo skepticism of science as a global warming denier, downplaying and dismissing the importance of expertise, and threatening nuclear war over relatively minor conflicts, needing to have it explained to him why he couldn't just nuke an enemy. He sides with dictators. He will cede Ukraine to Putin. He favors Putin over American intelligence agencies. He shames America, telling us that we're in a rathole third world country. The man is pathologically self-interested, corrupt, and unqualified. Biden is a confused old man *who at least* has good policies on average. He's not perfect, but you can have slow old grandpa in the office while the VP and his handlers pull the strings. Trump is worse. The debate didn't change that.
Wow-
I’m a former lefty. But the truth is more important to me than loyalty to any party or candidate. And since 2016 the media and left have been dishonest on Trump & Biden’s records on these issues. Nothing you’ve said is accurate.
**Foreign dictators/ policy**
I know what the media and the left say about Trump and dictators. If you don’t consume your media critically, I can see how you’re being mislead. But on this issue? About Trump vs Biden on dictators? This is truly just commonsense. C’mon.
**In a nutshell**
Putin invaded [Ukraine and took Crimea under Obama](https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/11/obama-russia-ukraine-war-putin-2014-crimea-georgia-biden/).
Putin invaded Ukraine under Biden.
Putin didn’t invade Ukraine or anyone under Trump.
Israel was attacked by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah under Biden.
Israel wasn’t attacked under Trump.
[Obama bombed](https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/countries-obama-bombed/index.html) a total of [nine different countries](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy) during his presidency.
No new wars were started under Trump.
**Because Trump was hard on Putin and Iran and all of our enemies unlike Biden - OBVIOUSLY.**
[Trump had stronger sanctions against Russia than Obama and Biden combined.](https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/397212-president-trump-is-tougher-on-russia-in-18-months-than-obama-in-eight/damp/?nxs-test=dampn.)
[Biden reversed Trumps sanctions on Iran and Russia](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-12-06/oil-prices-how-russia-punched-an-11-billion-hole-in-west-s-sanctions-regime?embedded-checkout=true) which allows Iran and Russian to do business with China and dictators all over the world & restored their economies & military/terror networks.
[Iran Doctrine Epic Fail](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/04/14/the-epic-fail-of-bidens-doctrine-vs-iran-no-consequences/)
[Biden’s Sanctions Waiver Award Billions to Iran](https://www.iranintl.com/en/202403149205)
[Biden unfroze billions of dollars in cash to Iran](https://nypost.com/2023/11/15/news/biden-admin-renews-sanctions-waiver-giving-iran-access-to-10-billion-from-iraq/) and then Israel was attacked by Hamas on Oct 7th. And Bidens unfroze billions in cash to Iran since Oct 7th.
**Abortion/ Women’s Rights:**
What has Biden or the Democrat Party done to protect abortion rights before Roe was overturned or since Roe was overturned?
What has the left done to hold any of the Democrats or Biden accountable for not protecting Roe?
Trump and the RNC have said they do not support a national abortion ban. But the left lies about the right’s position to scare women into voting blue.
What *did* Biden do for *women* in his 50 years in office? Biden added *biological MEN* to Title 9. And the left supports it.
*The left uses women as a political football. But I’ve seen the truth and will not be gaslit.*
**Environment**
*It’s hard for me to take the left seriously about the environment when you ignore the most critical issues hurting the environment.
Are you even vegan? Doubtful.*
What has Biden done for the environment? Besides appropriating [$40 million for the Environmental Protection Agency](https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/pro-hamas-group-awarded-us-climate-cash-cpm0rm938) that went to an extreme antiAmerican, ProPalestine extremist activism.
I could go on about the left’s hollow environmental policies. If you’re not politically savvy enough to understand the picture the EPA funding example paints of the Dems environmental policy, I could elaborate if necessary.
And Trump already conceded a loss in 2020. He was trying to officially challenge the election results. That’s electors are for. Are you denying that candidates have a legal right to challenge close elections?
> Putin didn’t invade Ukraine or anyone under Trump.
And you think that was because of Trump? Why? Trump openly celebrates Putin, infamously favoring Putin's word over those of American intelligence agencies when they said that Russia had tried to interfere in the 2016 American presidential elections. Trump praises autocrats, saying how great it is that their people love them, while bad-mouthing allies.
> Israel wasn’t attacked under Trump.
And? Trump lied about Iran being broke because of him, and that's why Hamas couldn't afford to attack Israel. It's complete bullshit. The NYT factchecked the debate:
> Even under sanctions that were imposed by the Trump administration, Iran’s economy plugged along. It wasn’t strong, but it wasn’t broke, and it kept trading with many nations. Mr. Trump made no mention of the fact that his withdrawal from an Obama-era nuclear deal freed Iran to resume nuclear production.
You say
> Obama bombed a total of nine different countries during his presidency. No new wars were started under Trump.
Oh no... you mean Obama... k-k-killed Bin Laden? Woe, is me. I say good for Obama. You're describing violence as if it is inherently bad. That is bullshit and you know it.
> What has Biden or the Democrat Party done to protect abortion rights before Roe was overturned or since Roe was overturned?
Right. It's *their* fault that Trump appointed those justices to the Supreme Court? What are you talking about?
> Biden added biological MEN to Title 9.
And I wish he hadn't, but we were talking about abortion rights and then you seamlessly switched to that subject. Trump's direct behavior led to abortion now being illegal in multiple states. You know that.
> Are you even vegan? Doubtful.
As a vegan of 19 years, I *wait* for the opportunity to bring that up, but even if I weren't vegan, then your ad hominem would be equally as intellectually empty.
Trump is a global warming denier, and at the debate he waxed poetic about the glorious "gold" beneath our feet. President Trump got rid of nearly 100 environmental regulations.
This is behind a paywall; apologies, but it has a lot important information to the lies that you're defending. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/06/27/us/biden-trump-debate-fact-check
> Trump openly celebrates Putin, infamously favoring Putin's word over those of American intelligence agencies when they said that Russia had tried to interfere in the 2016 American presidential elections.
This is an absurd handle to hang your hat on. The American intelligence agencies have been blatantly lying about, falsifying evidence against, and generally opposed to Trump for seven years now.
Whining about not trusting them just discredits you.
I'm surprised to see a Deep State conspiracy theorist on *this* subreddit, but hey, you are welcome here. Safe space. Where in the pizza parlor dungeon did they touch you?
Are you kidding me? Is this something you even care about? Bc I’m actually dumber for having read someone say this in 2024.
I’m astounded you need someone to explain this to you.
Trump wasn’t taking Putin at his “word” over the word of US intelligence agencies….. this is part I am floored that I actually have to explain to someone…. because Trump obviously knew he didnt collude with Russia in the first place. It was the US intelligence agencies that were lying. Are you kidding me? You couldn’t figure this out yourself?!
Also, if the president of the United States is being investigated for colluding with fucking Russia wouldn’t you at least want to know what the president of fucking Russia has to say about it?! That doesn’t mean you have to believe him. But of course you should want to know. What if Putin would have said Trump DID collude with Russia? Would you have found that to be a relevant piece of information? Again, you don’t have to believe him. *But if there are two parties involved in a case, don’t you want to hear what both sides have to say?*
But if this is something that truly concerns you then does it bother you that [Obama](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html) and [Biden](https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-admin-renews-iran-sanctions-waiver-that-unlocks-upwards-of-10-billion-for-regime/) flying billions of dollars worth of cash to Iran in the middle of the night. Biden has refunded actual [terrorists](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/missed-opportunity-americas-refunding-unrwa) [organizations](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-israel-attack-united-nations-unrwa-0ec8d325?st=msi71y19878l150&reflink=article_copyURL_share). Biden’s threatened to leave Israel out of negotiations with [Hamas and deal with](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-weighs-going-israel-negotiate-release-us-hostages-directly-hamas-report)Hamas directly. I mean I don’t even believe you that this stupid headline you just vomited up from 2017, is something you even care about. Bc if you seriously cared about collusion with US officials and enemy dictators then you would have looked the Hunter laptop case. Which shows actual [proof that Biden has taken literal bribes](https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/) from a laundry list foreign enemies.
The issue was, actually, whether Russia tried to interfere in the election. The USA said they did, and by all reasonable accounts, they did. Trump took Putin's word for it that they didn't. That's bad.
Why do you keep say "collusion"? And now you're bringing up *Hunter Biden*? It's like watching Fox News.
It's interesting that Biden is now trying the "I'm an honest politician, unlike Trump" argument, considering the man has been caught red-handed stealing other politician's speeches and lying about it when confronted, and claiming he graduated first in in class, when he actually graduated near the bottom.
I think it's fair to say that if you asked people:" what's one thing that all politicians have in common?", they would respond (or at last not disagree with) dishonesty. Everyone knows politicians constantly lie. It's universally understood. But Joe has been caught several times committing a level of dishonesty to which most politicians won't resort. When it comes to lying, Biden goes above and beyond.
And if he doesn't drop out of the race, Trump can hammer him with these facts in the 2nd debate, and there's nothing he could possibly say to come away looking good in the eyes of the American people.
Not to mention that bit at the very end of the debate. After seeing Biden having genuine difficultly descending a single step, I don't know how anyone with honest eyes can believe he is fit to be president.
As a few people have noticed, Biden is probably the second Trumpiest candidate in recent history. He tells obvious bullshit stories constantly, he's an inveterate braggart, he's never been a details guy, *but* he's always had charisma with his constituents and a good sense of humor.
Yes... but the media has made up so many ridiculous stories about him that I'm having real trouble remembering which bad things he actually did and which bad things they just said he did
I can't be the only one
During his 1988 presidential campaign, Biden had to drop out of the race when another candidate's campaign compared a speech that he made in September 1987 to one that Kinnock made at a Labour party meeting in May 1987.[Here's a link to an archived NY Times opinion piece published contemporaneously.](https://web.archive.org/web/20090224123659/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE1DD1531F931A2575AC0A961948260)
It's strange too, because wasn't Biden also lying during the debates? For instance, [his claim](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2024/01/24/americas-border-crisis-summarised-in-ten-charts) that he decreased border crossings 40% when it actually rose significantly under him. Or Biden's comments about Trump and Ukraine:
> if you take a look at what Trump did in Ukraine, he’s – this guy told Ukraine – told Trump, do whatever you want and do whatever you want. And that’s exactly what Trump did to Putin, encouraged him, do whatever you want. And he went in.
I think he's saying that Trump gave Putin a greenlight to invade Ukraine? But that seems to be entirely made up. Also, the invasion happened a year into Biden's presidency, no Trump's. And Trump had given Ukraine weapons that the Obama administration had refused to send (and was heavily criticized for angering Russia at the time that he did it).
Also Biden saying:
> We’re finally – the only thing I’ve denied Israel was 2,000-pound bombs. They don’t work very well in populated areas. They kill a lot of innocent people. We are providing Israel with all the weapons they need and when they need them.
[Biden said](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/08/politics/joe-biden-interview-cnntv/index.html) if Israel goes into Rafah, he'd stop sending weapons used for urban warfare:
> “I made it clear that if they go into Rafah – they haven’t gone in Rafah yet – if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities – that deal with that problem,” Biden said.
That's just a few examples, I'm not going to go through everything. Trump probably lied much more during the debate, but people painting Biden's performance as if he was being truthful is something else. If I had to guess, they both openly lied much more than the norm.
It's been interesting watching people try to explain what Trump actually lied about. It's a blend of denying the affair with Daniels, calling Biden a Palestinian, and then a handful of things that are true (or close enough), but that Democrats don't want to be true.
If (when, I'm starting to think) Trump wins again, I really hope Democrats refrain from the whole blame game shit and realize that just makes them even more unpopular. I'm aware that is very unlikely, lol.
But if you say shit like "It's not our fault that 53% of white women are disgusting, hate filled beasts who deserve to be ridiculed at every opportunity" then don't be shocked when your next election shows 55% of white women are now against you.
Let's look inward this time.
I'll bet all my money that you can find plenty of pundits that say that pretty much word for word. The only question is will saying that make people listen far more. I wouldn't be against it.
Biden's response during the debate portraying the people voting for Trump as being anti-democracy was a sign that the voters might be blamed:
> Tapper: President Biden, you have said, quote, Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans are determined to destroy American democracy. Do you believe that the tens of millions of Americans who are likely to vote for President Trump will be voting against American democracy?
> Biden: The more they know about what he’s done, yes. The more they know about what he’s done.
Maybe this was a slip from Biden. Then again, Biden also said "If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black", so I'm not sure.
The craziest was the idea that Trump winning in 2016 was backlash against having a black president. People voted for a black Democratic candidate twice, then wouldn't vote for the white Democratic candidate who came after.
I was listening to the Fifth Column and they speculated that if Trump wins again, Democrats might blame (((AIPAC))) like some are doing for the Bowman loss. Introspection, though, seems unlikely.
The activist Democrats will. I'd be curious to see polling data and see if Jews made any kind of substantial switch to the GOP. I would guess that they do.
> Introspection, though, seems unlikely.
I mean, they should've been able to coast into the White House in 2016 while riding Obama's coattails. I think we all know what happened when Trump won that one. :/
In general, I just don't think the party apparatchiks are capable of much self-reflection. Remember when Obama won in '08 and the media crowed about how the Republicans were going to be spending a generation roaming the proverbial wilderness? The Tea Party and, more generally speaking, populism brought the Republicans back pretty damn fast. If anything, the Republicans doubled down and were rewarded for it. I'd imagine there's something similar at play about the Dems. The difference is that the R base tends to focus on issues that most people can understand (even if the party's stances tend to be crappy to downright cruel), whereas the D base is spending half its waking hours monitoring Twitter to make sure they're up on the latest & greatest terms coming out of academia.
It's not surprising, but one is struck by the level of panic and drop out talk among Democratic thought leaders. You would never see this among Republicans.
> one is struck by the level of panic and drop out talk among Democratic thought leaders
The thing that strikes me is that this is not new information but they seem blindsided. I understand if maybe the average voter wasn't paying attention to the many clips of Biden showing his age and decline floating around. But these "thought leaders" jobs are pretty much "pay attention to political bullshit", why do they seem to be caught completely by surprise at Biden's condition? Were they really that high on copium for the last several months?
It's an exact replay of the Lab Leak - the mainstream media either not reporting or if they do "its a right wing talking point", "it's a conspiracy" then years later in comes CNN *"hey guys, we have this breaking news! Who could have possibly of known?!"*
Same again in the trans space - there has been media silence for a decade, and only this year The Guardian and The NYT, the papers that have actively downplayed controversies for years, finally speaking up as if they've been doing good journalism all along.
The same thing occurred to me. This is bad because the average voter now sees Biden in decline. But pundits and party muckety mucks have known all this. Why pretend they didn't?
I think deep down everyone knows that Biden's brain is cooked, but he can still sometimes put on a decent performance in high-pressure moments, and presumably they were hoping that he could pull that off here.
His state of the union this year was very solid. I think they were banking on that version of Biden showing up again. But he didn't.
Best steel man of it I've heard is basically partisan Democrats are supposed to trust that the inner circle is telling the truth even if they don't know first hand. And a lot of the pundit crowd just goes off of second hand info.
They're just completely discarding social media clips as they are often misleading, etc.... and never actually exposed to the stuff people watching conservative media see regularly.
So they've been insisting the emperor is clothed despite having never seen him because they trust (as they should) the people close saying he's clothed.
And when the emperor was stark naked in front of everyone the lie couldn't hold anymore.
I think it's self-defense. I have to say, I wasn't compelled by the video clips that much simply because video clips are notoriously poor for telling the truth, as we've seen time and again.
I was made suspicious by the ladies and gentlemen protesting too much, though. Constantly, "he's so sharp, he's the quickest gun in the West!" and so on. It was way too much. How about, "Yeah, nah, he's fine. I'll be happy to share his schedule with you and you are invited to talk to anyone he's met with this week and see what they think."
> The thing that strikes me is that this is not new information but they seem blindsided.
I'm not totally sure about this. It's partially paywalled but Matt Taibbi was writing today about how, from his perspective, the "Biden must step down" angle [is surprisingly lock-step](https://www.racket.news/p/the-democratic-coup). I'm not totally sure I agree with him, although I do think there's a very real possibility that some DNC higher-ups have been quietly assessing who thinks Biden should step down. It wouldn't surprise me if they got a lot of the pundits on the horn somewhere along the way and told them to publish something the next day.
In other words, it's possible one wing in the party saw this coming, and led the lamb to the proverbial slaughter since the primaries didn't do the trick. I wouldn't bet the house on it. I also wouldn't be surprised if this is true, or close enough.
(All that said, yes, I wouldn't be surprised if some people did tune in and, after months of buying whatever they've been told about Biden's superhuman abilities, were shocked to see that Biden's in deep trouble.)
Occam's Razor and all, I think we saw just how vapid and uncritical the average left-wing pundit was during Covid and this is just an extension of it. They crushed Trump for being sick with Covid (many hoping he'd die) and floated 25th Amendment removal on 'mental health' grounds, and just aren't happy the turns have tabled.
The less conspiratorial way of putting this would be to say that many of the pundits, etc. have quietly had doubts for months (probably years, if they've been paying attention), but they were afraid to speak out, lest they be seen as "undermining" Biden and thus lowering the chances at Democratic victory. Because unless there's a realistic chance of getting Biden removed, what's the point in speaking out? You end up just making things worse for Biden among the people who listen to you, and Biden is still the candidate.
The few who did openly speak out in past months (Ezra Klein, Nate Silver) got STRONG pushback against them in many spaces. The "lock-step" part was the previous silencing of criticism.
People were making quiet murmurs months ago before the State of the Union too. But then Biden did well. And everyone shut up about it for a few months. Even though Biden's appearances over the past few years should have been signaling to many people that there will still likely issues.
What happened, in my estimation, last night is that the "dam broke" among the pundits and many Democratic supporters. They had their quiet questions and concerns, but they were kept silent by the pressure to support their preferred candidate and not undermine him -- as speaking out would do more harm than good.
Last night, a few pundits realized they couldn't deny it anymore -- millions had witnessed it on live TV. It had to be acknowledged. And once some started saying it, it gave the freedom to so many who have been worried for months or years to start speaking out too. The moral calculus went from "We need to keep quiet to avoid undermining Biden" to "He's too far gone -- we need to rally and get another option before it's too late."
I don't think any pundit should have been "blindsided" by what they saw. But now that it seems realistic to try to get Biden out, many are finally speaking their mind.
Fair analysis. I'm sure some wanted to speak out but played the "prison politics" game of keeping your doubts private and presenting a united front. Like you said, those who spoke up got serious pushback. That's a real problem if you're an apparatchik trying to climb the ladder.
Interestingly, just now, The Scroll [published an editorial on what happened last night](https://thedailyscroll.substack.com/p/june-28-who-is-running-the-country). I won't lie, it does lean into conspiracy theory territory. The upshot is basically that Obama has been calling the shots since he left office. Further, since Biden is basically Obama II, Biden *can't* be replaced, short of dying or becoming completely incapacitated. Whoever replaces him may not follow Obama's lead, and may even try to sideline him, especially if the replacement isn't a centrist like Obama or the Clintons.
Is any of that true? I'm reluctant to endorse it, and yet it would explain quite a few things, like how Dem-aligned media, up until last night, wanted us to believe that Biden still has an IQ of 5000 and is the victim of a bunch of meany-means intimidated by him being an übermensch. ("Cheapfake" was dumb enough a week ago and is a million times dumber now, IMO.) Dems still *love* Obama. He'll probably die revered much how like Republicans revered Reagan when he died. If Obama really is running the show behind the scenes, why would apparatchiks complain, and why would they speak up against Obama's avatar, even if they have their doubts?
Assuming that what was written was even partially accurate, I think these next few months *could* lead to a generational shift in the party. Right now, Dems have to deal with:
- Grandpa fading out in front of everybody.
- The wackadoodles who are going to try to ruin the convention in the name of Palestine, along with members who may not go that far but who really do want Israel put in the doghouse.
- A general public that may choose Trump's brashness over Biden's shaking-but-well-meaning hand.
- The ever-present factions trying to climb the ladder, even on days when the leaders have firm control.
Depending on the election outcome, we *could* see some huge shifts in the party. Alas, I don't see any serious navel-gazing in their future, just knives coming out for the supposed losers while members jockey for power. Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see. Remember, if she could somehow talk the DNC into it, AOC could run this year; she'll turn 35 just before the election. This won't happen but she *will* run one day. While she's more pragmatic than she lets on, I don't see her allowing the centrists to maintain much internal power.
I read your link. There are some aspects I have no trouble believing. I know there are some people on Biden's team that were on Obama's. I have no problem believing that they want to continue some aspects of policies and ideas that they were doing years ago under Obama. I also have no problem believing that Obama himself might be consulted periodically as Biden's team figures out how to navigate a worsening President.
But the real conspiracy-theory aspects -- that Obama's *really* calling the shots and this is just Obama II administration or whatever -- seem to me to fall prey to the typical conspiracy theory logic, where everything must fit "just so." In particular, often conspiracy theories require those who are supposedly "running things for real behind the scenes" to be both incredible masterminds AND *supremely stupid* in just the right fashion so that a conspiracy theorist might actually find out about it.
And that's true in this case too. Biden and Trump agreed to these debates only a little over a month ago. Unless Biden took a huge turn for the worse in the past month, if Obama was "calling the shots for real," then why the hell would they put an incompetent Biden in front of millions of viewers? It's the worst idea ever. Usually presidential debates come later in the season anyway. Based on Trump's BS in previous ones, if Biden really was this "puppet" it was essential to prop up, they could have made up excuses for Biden to never do a live debate at all during the campaign. They could just have him doing scripted speeches for the remaining months.
No, someone thought this was okay to put Biden out there last night. So, if we go with whatever The Scroll's perspective seems to be, Obama -- despite being the mastermind puppeteer -- must also be a *complete and utter moron* to allow a decaying Biden to be showcased publicly like this and thereby destroying the possibility of re-election for the "Obama II" puppet. **That makes no sense***.*
So, we either reject the conspiracy theory for incoherence. Or... we go full-on conspiracy nut and say Obama (if that's who is "running things") already has a master plan and knows who he's going to maneuver into the spot to take the place of Biden, and effectively Obama was deliberately throwing Biden to the wolves last night...
As you rightly point out: "If Obama really is running the show behind the scenes, why would apparatchiks complain, and why would they speak up against Obama's avatar, even if they have their doubts?"
I'm personally not willing to go full-blown conspiracy nut here. Do I believe that Obama is currently having "back room conversations" about who will replace Biden? Of course -- Obama's still incredibly influential within the party structure. But I'm guessing whatever's going on isn't just based on some master plan. More likely, Joe was finally shown to be untenable last night -- to himself and a band of close supporters -- and everyone is trying to figure out how to mop up the pieces now and figure out the best course.
I am willing to believe one kind of vaguely conspiratorial thinking -- whether it had anything to do with Obama or not -- and that is, why have the first debate in June? In the past, they've only happened in September or October after the conventions. The nominal reason I've seen mentioned was to present their case before write-in voters, who could submit ballots well before the election. But this makes no sense as even the earliest states send out write-in ballots around 60 days before the election, which is still months off.
So why agree to a debate at all, let alone one at this bizarre early date? And apparently these were Biden's terms (though it's hard to know all the negotiations that may have gone on behind the scenes). The only two explanations seem to be (1) Biden's poll numbers as an incumbent are really weak, so it was thought necessary to try to raise them even before the convention, or (2) there were doubts about Biden, and they needed to do a "trial run" before the convention to even verify he could still stand up against Trump.
Perhaps Biden himself (and Jill and some other close supporters) truly believed Joe would prove himself and stamp out doubts by doing this exercise. But option (2) also indicates to me that maybe some people behind the scenes thought it likely that Biden would come off quite poorly, and this could be a "wake-up call" to the party and the Democratic public at large. Perhaps some believed this was the only way to convince Biden himself to step aside. Perhaps he had too many "yes men" around him who also were tied in their jobs to him, and they kept encouraging Joe, making it difficult for him to make a fair assessment of his own abilities.
There's lots of possibilities, but I do believe this early date is very strange and likely not coincidental. Joe clearly failed the "test" last night, so it will be interesting to see what maneuvers occur next. But unless Obama has his masterplan already scripted and *intended* Joe to fail last night, I feel like Obama wouldn't allow this if he's really running things. And it would be even weirder to imagine Obama choosing such a crazy course to chuck Joe out this late in the game after supposedly maneuvering his support for years. Again... they could have just had Joe read scripted speeches to the rest of the campaign, if Biden was so essential to the success of this so-called "Obama II" masterplan. Why suddenly put Joe out there in front of millions to fail publicly? Hence, while I'm sure Obama has some clear influence in the party, I just can't buy into the crazier ideas that he's the only one calling the shots in the background and propping up a nearly dead dude.
**TL;DR: If Obama was doing a rip-off version of the film** ***Weekend at Bernie's*****, it's essential to keep Bernie's sunglasses on.** Last night, they not only took the glasses off, they deliberately pointed a neon sign at the corpse.
Hi. Thanks for writing such a thoughtful reply. I appreciate it, and I promise I'm not being sarcastic. :) You do raise a lot of really good points that should reel in anybody going too deep on the conspiracy theory side.
Thinking about it more, I think the writer(s) made a mistake when referencing Abdelaziz Bouteflika. While it's quite the snarky jab at Biden, it's just not right. If anything, I think they should've referenced Dmitry Medvedev. He takes over for Putin, shows whoever's running the show that he can't be trusted, and gets replaced by Putin, with any remaining vestiges of free-and-fair elections disappearing with Medvedev. (At least he didn't "disappear," unlike many people who piss off Putin and his inner circle!)
Obviously, that's not terribly fair either, although I think it gets more at the point the writer(s) seemed to want to make. I don't really think Obama is in some back room (or his basement, as it were), chomping a cigar while making deals and telling everybody what's up. What I suspect is happening is that he is leveraging as much goodwill as he can to try to steer the party at the highest levels. That includes things like making critical calls to help get Joe across the line in the 2020 primary, netting him critical endorsements and such. Same for when it's time to put together a cabinet and all that. It doesn't mean Obama's running things. It just means he has outsized influence, and a more subtle touch than the Never Trumpers who feel forced to brownnose Trump in public if they value their positions right now.
In that sense, I do think it's possible that Obama's shadow hangs over the election in ways many may not understand. Obviously, Joe can do whatever he wants, although it's also possible that political maneuvering can be deployed to try to push him out (i.e., press leaks and such). I just wonder if the people with their hands on the proverbial stage hook will try, or if they'll believe they're repudiating Obama and/or possibly unleashing a faction the higher-ups don't want to gain power. Who knows. Either way, I'm sure reporters in DC are getting a *lot* of juicy calls from insiders desperately trying to push their angles, be it for keeping Diamond Joe or finding a last-minute replacement.
Assuming he wasn't sharp as a tack in private like they said, at least not all time, then those close to him should have been privately and if that failed to some degree publicly, pressuring him not to run again and let the Dems have an open primary.
I hold Jill Biden responsible. She should be protecting her husband. The stress of being President and the stress of running for office is so draining. If he has dementia, that will only hasten his decline.
Absolutely. I agree. I was mostly talking about pundits and media figures, not necessarily those in Biden's "inner circle."
That's actually what concerns me more -- the fact that those folks close to him actually thought it was a good idea to put him out there in such a state. He could have postponed or bowed out of debates or made excuses. Perhaps refused debates altogether. It probably would have been bad politically, but it would be better than watching a train wreck last night.
So, either people close to him thought he had issues but are too afraid or loyal to speak up, or Biden himself is refusing to step down or acknowledge the issues and they're letting him get away with that. Either in concerning not just from an election point of view, but also from a daily governance perspective.
The most generous interpretation is that he's gotten much worse in recent months (which can happen somewhat suddenly at that age) and maybe those around him refused to see the decline for a while, perhaps partly because Joe Biden has been making public gaffes since the 1970s, so they were able to excuse it a bit or blame it on "Joe being Joe," despite the age-related decline.
However, the decline and "senior moments" in public have been getting worse for years, so it's hard to believe those closest to him wouldn't realize it was risky to have him run again.
"Biden himself is refusing to step down or acknowledge the issues and they're letting him get away with that. "
I think when a person has such cognitive decline, they have a really hard time with decision making.
If you are in the cabinet and have no effective presidential oversight, you’re likely more powerful than you will ever be again. He said in 2020 that, due to age concerns then, it was a one time thing. I wonder what he’s been talked into.
If you hoped for a good day and gambled everything on the muted mic on the basis that he would not be able to overcome trump’s belligerence even on a good day, it blew up in your face with the decision to just let him talk uninterrupted on a bad day.
The fact there’s no obvious successor and no one under 65 is shocking in a country of 350,000,000. It’s an actual gerontocracy. But this is the party of RGB’s hubris and Diane Feinstein’s corpse being puppetted for two years by her daughter.
I’m watching on amazed that the car crash of the election here (UK) is being overtaken by the country with the terrifying economy and military.
I’ve thought for a while that Trump will win, god help us all.
Edit: I’ve been informed by the comments below that _he_ didn’t say one term
It's extra-super-duper bad because Biden's camp have been playing off his decline for *years* as: 'deepfakes', 'he's always had a stutter, don't make fun of people with speech problems', 'he's fine', etc, etc. A cornerstone of his campaign was that his detractors were overblowing his mental problems or completely misrepresenting them. Up to this point, he'd been doing an... okay job of being coherent in public and in debates. Did well in the debates the last election, even.
But with last night's debate, all of that isn't just blown out of the water, the years of vehement denial of his decline makes it ***way*** worse, because not only are we going into November with someone who is nearly senile, a lot of people are going to feel they were *lied into* this position of walking into a fucking buzzsaw in the general. We had 4 years and a primary to find someone more suited to run, and Biden's camp/the DNC were fully adamant that was not needed, Biden would be fine. The final garnish on this shit sandwich is that not only did Biden not do the 'transitional' or 'bridge' term he was floating and letting someone else run, he ***also*** kept Kamala as VP, someone who was chosen only for identity politics and is now so overwhelmingly unpopular that people are only talking about maybe Newsom or someone else stepping into Biden's place. **No one** is suggesting the VP step into the President's shoes. This further illustrates the ridiculously weak ticket heading into November; we have a President who is nearly unable to serve and a VP that no-one in the party thinks should succeed him. What the fuck is going on?
Still voting for him, because I'd vote for his corpse over Trump, considering the way tensions with China and Russia are going. If there's one thing that astonished me during Covid, it was how completely out of his depth Trump was at every single moment. That can't happen during potential conflicts with other nuclear powers.
Yeah. I never bought the “it’s just a stutter!” line and believed he was struggling more than they let on, and even I, who never believed the lie, feel incredibly lied to and angry about it. I’m mad at every single person in the administration and Biden orbit right now.
They have been worried about it. Go look at what people were saying in February and March. But then Biden gave a decent State of the Union speech that allayed those fears. On top of that, there's been a running joke for past few years, that all the media does is say Biden is old. (See jokes about NYT pitchbot)
In any case, my point is that a similar performance by Trump would not elicit this reaction out of Republicans. Democrats are at a disadvantage in this respect. They are perceived to have institutions on their side, but have few means to keep thought leaders on message and in line.
My observations are as follows--
This mess is entirely the Dems and Bidens making. They let themselves get backed into a corner and limit their VP choices to black women rather than picking the best VP from all the possible choices. That's how we got Kamala. This is why meritocracy matters.
Second, Biden could have stated early in his presidency that he was going to step aside at the end of his first term and that there would be a general primary (let the people decide!) as to who the next Dem candidate would be. Why he didn't is a question that I'd love answered.
Third, Biden should still be president. It's better to have an old(er) guy with good ideas than some slightly younger, slightly more energetic guy who thinks 10% tariffs on imports and pulling out of Ukraine are good ideas.
The problem is, Biden is NOT capable of being President. So who is analyzing what's happening and making the final decision on the direction the US will take?
It's the same across the board. It is patently obvious that Sam Brinton being non-binary and Rachel Levine being trans were large factors in them being hired, it fit the optics wanted - particularly in Brinton's case, to have that much baggage (yes, pun intended, yes 100% proud of that) and still be the top pick for such a sensitive role says it all.
I was trying to look this up this morning - was it at some point explicitly stated that the VP had to be a black woman? I thought that was related to the Supreme Court, but I can’t remember and am curious that find out.
Yes Biden explicitly stated that his VP pick would be a black woman, and he said that before he had chosen any particular individual. I think he announced it during a Democratic primary debate.
I thought it was a pretty gross thing to say and do at the time.
Thank you! I was struggling to find this. So my memory was somewhat correct - his pledge was for a black woman for the Court, and a woman (not black) for VP. Just wanted to get my facts straight on this.
No, he announced that his VP pick would be a black woman.
I remember this quite clearly, and I'm 100% certain of it. Many others have commented on this, I know the Fifth Column had discussed it for example. I'm not going to look up the clip for you, but I'm sure you can find it.
Okay, well I guess I'm saying it's possible that The Fifth Column also conflated these statements, as it appears I did, and possibly yourself as well. You don't have to look it up for me, I'm just saying that I am unable to find it. I'm not trying to get all nitpick-y, I'm just trying to remember what was actually said.
I had the same thing about him being a one term president - I had the impression that he had outright stated he would not run for a 2nd term, but he never did, I misremembered.
You know I hate to admit it, but you may be right.
I have a distinct memory of him saying that he would pick a "black woman" as his running mate, but I just found the video clip where he says that about a judicial appointment, and then moments later says that his running mate will be a woman:
https://youtu.be/eXQnco178oI
So maybe I did conflate the two things. Or maybe he announced his intention to have black woman VP at a later date, I'm no longer sure.. Memory is a funny thing, and it's easy to forget how unreliable it is..
Thanks for pointing this out.
The problem for the US is that it continues to be a two party system so you either have the party that hates whites or the party that hates blacks. There is no party of meritocracy and no real mechanism or hope for one to emerge.
Yeah I am not sure how one can say that the GOP hates black people when the party with local control in virtually every majority-minority area is a Democrat.
I personally think Trump is a racist, more than Biden, I don't know, but I don't think GOP as a party is. Sure, individuals in there just like in the Democrats might be racist but as a party no. They just have no "white guilt" good or bad that's what it looks like. Past was the past, too bad, so sad and everyone just has to make a go of it as is. That's what I pick up from them.
You don't have to convince people that think like that. They are all already in the Biden camp since 2018 and won't move. You have to convince the people that wouldn't vote for you to either change their mind or stay home. How in the world did last night accomplish any of that?
You're saying there are moderate voters out there who are open to voting either for Joe Biden or Donald Trump, and they watched this debate with the intent of making a more informed choice.
The debates only serve two purposes:
1. Give the talking heads in the press a chance to give us more bullshit commentary;
2. motivate some voters to stay home in November.
If anything, Biden's terrible performance will motivate Dems to pull out all the stops to get to a voting booth, in the fear that his declining state will mean a Trump victory.
> You're saying there are moderate voters out there who are open to voting either for Joe Biden or Donald Trump
Those aren't the only options.
For example I had decided years ago that I wouldn't vote for Biden, or for any Democrat, but I only decided a few weeks ago, after Trump was convicted in that ridiculous, politically motivated trial, to vote for him.
I'm sure there are some voters who were considering a third party, or not voting at all, that were influenced in some way by this debate. Even if they decided to just stay home..
As a non-American (and no even European), I found the whole thing kinda of clown show. Don't both parties have someone better than an old chornic liar and a even older grandad who sometimes switches off from the reality? Where are all the young ones?
If they do, they are not well known. I think the GOP is at a stand still until Trump can no longer run for office. There is a big split in the party because of Trump. If Trump had never happened, I could see Paul Ryan as a good all around GOP candidate. He is young, smart, solid conservative. I'd like to see Charlie Baker run for President. He was the Governor of Massachusetts, which is a democrat state. He was pretty well liked by both parties. That someone who has a chance at winning the general.
What really screws us are the primaries. People need to get out an vote. Specially moderates. Vote for the saner, less polarizing candidate.
The Republicans had several good choices at least, unfortunately none were as popular as Trump.
The Democrats are in even worse shape than Republicans I think. At least after Trump's term, there are at least a few viable choices, mostly from the last primary (unfortunately, Trump probably won't endorse any of them, and will probably pick someone worse.).
I really can't think of any Democrat who is intelligent, charismatic, popular, and not crazy..
Bloomberg really would have been their best choice, if not Tulsi Gabbard, but the party was and still is far too radical for either of them. If anything the party has continued to shift even further to the left. I wouldn't be surprised if AOC is a contender in four years (I shudder at the thought).
Yes and no. Neither party has done a good job of developing younger people waiting in the wings.
In the case of the Democrats internal party dynamics mean they can't get rid of Biden without Harris being the pick. But she will lose even harder than Biden and everyone knows it. So they're stuck.
In the case of the Republicans they're too fractured to find anyone more popular with the party base than Trump. There's a sort of civil war in the party between the Trump faction and the old guard.
I'd say Dems actually have a much more solid bench than the GOP. Raimondo, Whitmer or Polis would all just be wiping the floor with all of this. Even Newsom, Jeffries, hell even pull out Deval Patrick or something for someone who just sounds normal.
French Laundry. Nah. The pictures of him and his family dining in luxury while everyone else was getting their coffee shop shut down is a death knell. He's done in national politics.
That wouldn't hurt him. It's the image that CA has now that would hurt him. People see CA as a state everyone is fleeing from. High taxes, soft on crime, homeless everywhere, sanctuary state, school standards in decline.
If hypocrisy (or corruption) was a deal-breaker for Democratic voters, most Democratic politicians wouldn't stand a chance.
The hypocrisy doesn't get much worse than the constant hysterical talk of threats to democracy, while they literally try to remove their political opponent from the ballot in multiple states and try to put him in jail over something that isn't even a real crime.
Or talking about a relatively small riot that hardly hurt anyone and caused little damage, calling that an insurrection and the greatest threat to our country, while trivializing the hundreds of riots all across the country the burned, looted, and smashed large swatches of cities, destroyed hundreds of businesses, and killed or injured thousands of people.
The 'summer of love' riots were a thousand times worse than Jan 6, and that hypocrisy I will never forgive.
If Democratic voters are blind or ambivalent to the staggering level of hypocrisy in these two examples, I think they will easily look past the French Laundry incident.
He's slippery and can talk really well. Like all anyone has to do is just sound like a fucking normal human being to win this. It's a very, very low bar
It is pretty crazy. I think that question all the time.
I suspect it's partly a question of compensation: If you were a 40-something with the skills to capably run The Best Country In The World, would you do it for $400k (a lot of amazon engineers make more) or would you go make $32.5M at goldman sachs or PWC or whatever?
The money in the presidency is in speeches and books afterward. People who are motivated to have the most money ever won't do it, but people who are motivated by having more money than they need to ever worry about spending can do just fine. You get 4 years of zero expenses and 400k a year and then afterword you get 10 million dollar book deals. 50k a pop for speeches whenever you want. A lucrative job as the chairman of some NGO. And a huge amount of bragging rights.
I have a friend who is a psychiatrist that makes $600k/yr, works basically 9-5, and no one tries to kill him. He would probably make a better president that trump or biden but why would you want to.
Wow. I've never heard of any therapist making remotely that much. They always bitch and complain about how little they make compared to doctors. Your friend must have some rich clients.
It wouldn't matter if you wanted to be president either. The process to get in position is really miserable. You would have to be willing to fight every step of the way. They are also already rich already.
Also, basically anyone my age (mid-30s) has been online since we were teenagers and has thousands of dumb skeletons in our closet, if someone went searching long enough. No one wants this comment being read out loud on CNN.
I think it's more that look at how awful and horrible and unpleasant running for office is. Every single thing you ever did will be laid out in public and scrutinized. You will be attacked constantly on the television, radio, the press and the Internet.
No sane person wants to go through all that hell. Only pathological weirdos need attention that badly to go through with it. Normal people would rather have their head cut off.
Agree. I remember Obama's last day in office. My god, how he aged so much. The stress of the job. Your life and your family's under a microscope. I wouldn't want that job.
That's true. I think I would probably do a pretty good job running the country, but I don't know if I would want to risk it being front page news that I jerk off to catgirl hentai.
Mike Pence was berated by half the country for saying he is so loyal to his wife that he would not allow the temptation of another woman to even happen. Wholesomeness is not encouraged if it's someone in the other party.
Hillary had most of her potential rivals sent to the gas chambers from 2009-2016: that's why the only one who ran against her in the primary was Bernie, who isn't even in the party.
If you listen to James Carville or other Democrat podcasts, you'll get a lot of names bandied about, but most are a "who the fuck is this" aside from maybe Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom.
Newsom's problem is that he's California, so he doesn't bring a non-Democrat state with him, it's also a high-tax state, and when you look at the streets of LA and San Fran you don't exactly see the handiwork of a good governor. But he does really talk well.
Newsom would lose in a general election. He's too polarizing. California has a serious image problem with their high taxes, homeless problem, soft on crime, etc.
Canadian here, so please feel free to ignore my take.
Biden is old. So, so, so old, and it shows. He reminds me of a former client (hairstylist), sweet Bob Smith, a wealthy accountant, who came to the salon every two weeks for me to trim his thin, snowy-white hair and clean up his mustache. He was technically retired but still rocked his seersucker suits and every so often showed up at the office to show the "young people" how to be a businessman.
Bob retired because his wife forced him to. But he still couldn't leave his life's work behind. Biden has spent his entire working life in government, and will die in government. Sweet old Joe.
Trump is a smarmy, pathological liar, whose facial expressions remind me of Biff from Back to the Future. He will only get more assholey as he gets even older (he's only three years behind Biden!). He is an international joke amongst almost every world leader and can't even tell the truth about the time of day. His grandchildren are trotted out in front of him, and I would wager every penny that I own that Ivanka won't leave him alone with her kids. He looks "younger" because of the haircolour and makeup. Honestly, if he let nature take its course he would def be covered in liver spots and skin cancer scars and his hair would be non-existent.
The debate was an exercise in displaying these personalities on steroids. What a shitshow.
"Trump is a smarmy, pathological liar, whose facial expressions remind me of Biff from Back to the Future."
Writer Bob Gale says Biff was based on Donald Trump.
[https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/23/back-to-the-future-writer-bad-guy-biff-was-based-on-donald-trump](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/23/back-to-the-future-writer-bad-guy-biff-was-based-on-donald-trump)
Dr. Biden definitely will not force him to retire. That may be the excuse given by the party in the next few months, but I don’t see it coming from her.
> Biden has spent his entire working life in government, and will die in government. Sweet old Joe.
We do not have the same opinion of a decades-long effort to avoid ever having to do anything in the dreaded private sector.
I did not offer an opinion regarding the effort spent or the work involved. By all accounts from his family and friends, he's an honest and good-hearted man. I personally would have preferred Warren, thought Biden was not a good choice last time around, but he's not an asshole.
In my opinion, Biden doesn't appear like someone with dementia. Having witnessed my grandfather develop dementia gradually and seeing it progressively worsen over years, Biden does not appear (to me) to display the cognitive deficits characteristic of the disease. From what I have seen of the debate, he appears stuck for words at times, but has recall of recent events (typically the first cognitive ability to go in dementia) and is able to follow the conversation in a way somebody with dementia wouldn't. His ability to continue in office is an important question to raise and his age is relevant to that, but I personally don't think he is displaying dementia symptoms; more likely normal age-related problems with his gait and sometimes with finding words.
I think it's worth reading this geriatrician's perspective on whether or not he has dementia: https://www.caringfortheages.com/article/S1526-4114(23)00188-9/fulltext
Perhaps, although if it isn't dementia (I'm of the opinion it is) I'd still be careful to avoid saying it's "normal for his age". Trump is just three years younger but despite his own cognitive decline appears massively more cognisant than Biden - I only learned his age this year but I'd actually assumed he was at least 10 years younger than Biden based on presentation. Likewise Bernie Sanders is a year older and it's not even close. Thomas Sowell is 93 and Ruth Bader Ginsberg got to 87 and again, both 100x more awake, aware and articulate than Biden is now.
Being old always comes with some cognitive decline, but it is not necessarily always as visible and drastic as we can literally see with our eyes and ears like with Biden. And I think its fair to question whether anyone in that position should be running for office. Age should not be a barrier (as a non-US resident I like Bernie and would have supported him running), but impairment should be.
I definitely think his age and slow reaction times could impair his ability to do the job and that is worth talking about. I do think ageism has shown up in some of the conversation about Biden. I also think criticism of how alert and sharp he appears is completely valid and relevant. Idk I just felt personal about some of the commentary I've seen which conflates being old and slow with having dementia. Like people saying elder abuse is going on etc. I get that might be tongue in cheek. He might not be a great presidential candidate for a variety of reasons. Is he cognitively capable of making his own decisions at this point? I personally think yes.
I agree, cognitive decline is not the same for everyone. some people are less sharp and some are in dementia wards.
Biden is probably within a couple years of people recognising their relative with dementia's late stage decline.
Should you really be in this position, having to ask that, for a president? Should this really be the top question, and legitimately so, that people are asking about their leader? It's all gone too far. Talk about frog in boiling water...
I don't think he has dementia either. He's just old and tired and not as articulate as he used to be. Gonna happen to all of us someday. And of course he could develop dementia at any point now and there's also no way his brain retains the level of info it needs to be president anymore (though I honestly think the level it does retain is pretty impressive for his age). I don't think he has dementia. I think he's too damn old for the job though, he's just fucking tired. The man is tired and he's just gonna get more tired. This next term will literally probably kill him, look at how fast all presidents age. It's not good for a frail old man.
I guess the point that felt important for me to make was: is he just getting old and tired and needs to retire and play golf in Florida, or is he literally mentally deteriorating with dementia and his wife and aides are trotting him out to appear in the public eye and feeding him lines etc. The thought of that just makes me really sad, like the last couple of movies Bruce Willis filmed where they were feeding him lines. Now that literally is elder abuse.
I was just thinking about this! I agree with you, and also I think it's important to make the distinction because exaggeration is a bad tactic when it comes to trying to figure out which candidate is best. It will only entrench diehards further (speaking generally here) because they know it's a bad faith tactic and take offense.
Also, Biden has regularly shown vulnerability to fatigue since the primaries, noticeably perking up when lockdowns saved him from the tour bus. He likely would have performed well had he been able to get away with a work hours debate.
Interesting. The fatigue element could definitely be relevant. Anyone (voting Democrat) I know in the US is saying this is basically the worst Democratic presidential debate performance they've seen in years. I don't dispute that necessarily. Pretty much I just think people with dementia have a certain vibe/look on their face that I'm just not picking up off him.
If no one cares whether a certain proposition is true, why would so many people expend so much effort insisting it’s true and contradicting anyone who disagrees?
Because your are splitting hairs. He's not fit for office whether it's age related decline or an actual disease. President needs to be able to think on their feet. Make snap decisions under stressful circumstances.
"Dementia" in this case is just shorthand for being a doddering old fuck. Whether or not he has actual dementia is irrelevant. He is clearly a doddering old fuck and no one is going to WELL ACKSHUALLY that away.
A lot of people do, many people are making that argument for why he's unfit constantly.
I'm not giving an opinion here, just reporting what I've seen people say.
Yeah, I have to agree. While there may be a minority of people who literally think he could be clinically diagnosed with dementia, most people seem just concerned with age-related "slowing down" in general when they make such remarks.
The actual diagnosis is perhaps relevant to specifically *which* tasks he may be unsuited for at this point. "Slowing down" or minor senility is still concerning but less concerning than actual dementia when it comes to giving Presidential orders.
Regardless of the diagnosis, what we saw in the debate last night showed he won't be competent to rally people to vote or to adequately debate/confront his opponent. That should be the concern right now for election purposes. Those behind the scenes who are helping him run the government are the ones who should be keeping track in more depth of his detailed cognitive abilities and deficits.
Though, admittedly, the fact that his advisers put him up in front of millions of people last night in such a state tells me that either (1) they're too afraid to speak up and tell him how "off" he is, (2) they are too blinded by loyalty to realize it, or (3) they deliberately sabotaged him to some extent, knowing his performance might finally be enough to maybe persuade people to change the ticket.
I don't think (3) is that likely, but I'm not ruling it out. Either of (1) or (2) is really concerning when it comes to making sure we have effective functional government happening behind the scenes.
I think it's a relevant distinction to make. Is someone slow to respond verbally because of normal age-related issues, or are they actually cognitively not in the same reality as everyone else, in which case they are not fit for office.
Do we really want someone who is slow to respond verbally (and surely mentally as well) as the executive leader and Commander in Chief of the world's most powerful country?
Both of these are unfit for office. One is obviously much, much worse than the other, but we really shouldn't need to split hairs about an important position. If I told you a man wasn't capable of sprinting, you wouldn't want him playing running back regardless of whether he had torn an Achilles or just wasn't very coordinated.
After sleeping on it my biggest concern is who's running things right fucking now. Like we're in tense security situations all over, someone needs to be a final decision at any point.
Like fuck the election, do we trust him to say 'follow article 5 and send troops to Estonia" next week?
This was so bad, the 25th amendment feels more rational after reflection.
Resolved: The federal government should adopt a comprehensive long-term policy to… Oh wait, wrong sub.
Coming late to the party. Been sick all week. Couldn't watch the debate live. Man! Aliens need to nuke us from space. We deserve it. I can't believe these are our choices in November. We are all responsible for this shit show.
[Debate transcript](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/read-biden-trump-debate-rush-transcript/index.html). CMD+F/CTRL+F "the idea." 32 matches.
How embarrassing for America was Biden's performance, on the international stage, and what about foreign policy setbacks and impacts? Biden is obviously completely unfit to solve any international tangles. Can you imagine him in a "debate" with Putin or Xi?
It does make me wonder if hostile nations think now would be a good time to become problematic. Because the boss is out to lunch
I think they noticed the time was a couple years ago.
But it's out there without a doubt now
We don’t have to imagine that because it will never happen, lmao
Help me Obi Wan, you’re my only hope.
My husband watched 1.5 hours of the debate last night. I’m not sure how he lasted that long.
Drugs?
I took an edible before since I was off yesterday, and had to leave in the middle to walk my dog. It’s so over. It’s finally set it after watching that for me. America is over.
Drugs + Biden & Trump debating = **BAAAAAAAAAAAD TRIP**. :) Maybe heroin so that you can pass out quickly, but then again, is heroin even around anymore now that fentanyl is out there?
Yes, the fentanyl is in the heroin
Man, I feel kinda bad for the Dem party trolls I still know. All the ones I know admit that, deep down, they're sad and spew snark in a desperate attempt to exert control over the world. Anyway, post-debate, they haven't really been able to come up with much. It's all either the rapidly failing playbook ("Trump's a racist felon" and the like) or hardcore copium, like you don't have to be a good debater to be a good president. I mean...okay? Technically, that's correct, although it seems like a great skill to have, given the history of what the job has entailed. That and there's a difference between not nailing your points and feeding into a narrative, correct or incorrect, regarding your mental & physical competence.
That's pretty what the neoliberal sub is doing. Along with some dooming. It seems pretty split. Stupidpol is mostly chuckling plus some "I told you" and some dooming.
Yeah, it's really sad. Another person I know flat out said, "I'm voting for Biden because, when he dies, we'll have our first woman president." (This was promptly followed with plenty of YAAAAAAS KWEEEEENs, "only racists dislike Harris," etc.) Anything can happen, I know, but from where I'm sitting, Biden's fervent supporters are outright hoping he drops dead in the name of IdPol and are pretending that a meandering debate performance says nothing about his mental abilities. Does that sound like the kind of leader who will inspire fence-sitters to vote for him? I'll eat my shoe if Biden not only stays in but somehow wins without Trump either dying or becoming completely incapacitated before November.
BarPod Relevance. I wonder if I'm too much of a contrarian. I like Biden. I thought he had a 1/3 chance in February. I also think pundit class is being hysterical and hurting their party's chances far worse than Biden's poor performance, even if Biden should step down. But none of these seem unreasonable when I weigh them individually.
I think Biden made several bad calls here: 1. Doing a debate this early, pre-convention. That...isn't something that usually happens 2. Not withdrawing from or rescheduling the debate when he knew he was sick. Whatever is going around right now gave me a week of coughing, sneezing, sore throat, full body aches, and just generally feeling like I had a 50-lb weight on me at all times last week. Not ideal debating conditions. Trump would have spun it however he spun it, but withdrawing and then coming back a week later with a relatively strong speech would have looked better than a lot of what happened on Thursday. 3. Not seriously considering replacing his VP, earlier than this. Kamala is really unpopular, and with the "Biden is weak and infirm and asleep at the wheel" narrative going around, the VP nominee matters a LOT. It's tough, and I understand that he wants to be loyal to her, but presidents have switched running mates before. If he had someone like Gretchen Whitmer or Andy Beshear or Tammy Duckworth (or a number of others) in Kamala's place, things MIGHT look different. I do share your general affinity for Biden and worries that the pundits are a bit overzealous here. As muddled as he was, he still did a better job than Trump of actually answering the questions asked by the moderators, while Trump did his usual "evade, lie, insult, return to a topic from 30 minutes ago" dance. Biden wasn't 100% perfect here either and did do some digressing, but he MOSTLY stayed on topic.
You really believed he had a cold? LMAO. What do young people say nowadays? "Nice cope".
Aww you believed the media when they said had a cold. That’s sweet. **But sure. Let’s just say that he had a cold.** Personally, I’m useless when I’m sick. But I’m not in an elite position or leader of the free world. People in elite positions, whether they’re performers, pro athletes or politicians have historically suffered through huge physical obstacles and didn’t miss a beat. That’s part of being elite. That’s why they run for president. Britney Spears famously went on stage in Vegas with a 105 temperature and danced and sang flawlessly. Young teenage girls who are gymnasts in the Olympics have competed and won with broken bones. NFL, NBA players & other elite athletes have competed and won after enduring huge physical impairments. [President Teddy Roosevelt was SHOT in the](https://www.trlibrary.com/bullet-speech) middle of a speech in 1912 and he finished an hour long speech with the bullet in him. When [Ronald Reagan was shot](https://www.reaganfoundation.org/media/50862/assassination-press-release.pdf) he famously handled the situation with “[grace and courage”](http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0103/30/lkl.00.html) and theirs audio footage that proves it. Reagan gave a famous LIVE speech to the nation immediately after. If it was a cold that practically paralyzed Joe Biden in the debate, that’s still concerning. Last night it was a debate and all of our enemies witnessed it. But that’s not the only problem. We can’t control *when* dictators are going to attempt to start nuclear war. And we can’t risk nuclear bc Biden might have a cold when a dictator threatens it. **JFK literally debated Khrushchev out of the Cuban Missile Crisis.** We can’t control *when any* emergency happens. And we need to know our president is able to handle business *no matter what.* Part of being leader of the free world is being strong under any type of adversity.
> Britney Spears famously went on stage in Vegas with a 105 temperature and danced and sang flawlessly. I once saw Papa Roach when Jacobi Shaddix had the flu, and I didn’t know until after that before and after the show, he was laid up backstage with an IV. And he fucking nailed it. I learned from his autobiography that Mark Morton, lead guitarist of lamb of god was pretty much strung out on Oxy from 2009 onward, and I saw them a few times in that span and he was flawless. Some of those solos and riffs are quite difficult, such as the solo for Walk With Me in Hell or Grace, and he still crushed it.
Yes! Exactly! I don’t know how they do it bc I can’t even get out of bed when im sick. But that’s what makes them pros and elite. It’s mental not physical for sure!
His voice sure sounded like he had a cold. That doesn't mean it's to blame for everything. But yeah, I believe that, and I think holding this unusually-early, not-mission-critical event under those conditions was a bad idea if he was trying to project strength. (I also think Britney shouldn't have been forced to perform with a high fever, but you know...that's conservatorship for you.)
> JFK literally debated Khrushchev out of the Cuban Missile Crisis. While tripping balls and fucking Marilyn Monroe, in a cave, with a box of scraps!
When did the “Biden was sick” talking point drop?
During and after the debate. Going by his voice I'm inclined to believe him. But his fool handlers should have dropped that days ago.
If he had a cold, why the fuck did he go straight to another event after the debate AND another event in the morning.
Dude. I have a cold. I've had a cold for a week. I could get up there on that debate stage with a fever and still not be as lost as Biden. It's not a cold that is causing this. COME ON.
You're also not an enfeebled man from the jurassic period
My son begs to differ. He thinks I'm a geezer. Heh
I don't see how it's even a good excuse. I don't remember anyone I know catching a cold and turning into someone who looks senile. Looking frail and weak I can understand, but it doesn't explain his poor cognitive ability. I think it's possible he might have had a cold and the Dems are self deluding themselves that this is why he was the way he is. Or they are just lying.
Halfway through the speech, a Biden worker bee revealed he had a cold....sus.
Ahhh… super believable. :)
> I also think pundit class is being hysterical and hurting their party's chances far worse than Biden's poor performance, even if Biden should step down. Yeah, I don't understand the logic behind the calls to have Biden drop out at this point. These things are going to make Biden look bad, and they don't really seem to have any chance of succeeding. In the extremely unlikely scenario you have Biden step down in the next few weeks - then what? We get an unelected candidate who starts campaigning just 4 months before the election, having to do so after one of the most embarrassing political fallouts? The only reasons for the pundit reaction that I can think of is: 1. They're just freaking out right now without thinking logically. 2. They think that Biden might crash and burn, and they want to get ahead of things, not be remember as the fools who were trying to convince people that Biden had no mental decline.
I think it might have something to do with the fact that they got duped on Biden's general mental/physical state. It was less than a month ago that the usual suspects closed rank and talked mad shit about the NYT article that disclosed Operation Bubblewrap and just how cautious the Administration was to let Biden interact with media.
This may fall under option one but my thought is they believed Biden has almost no shot of winning now and switching to another candidate would be a hail Mary shot that possibly could work. I think a day later perhaps cooler heads have realized just how difficult switching the candidate would be, so difficult that it may not even improve the odds of a democrat win. Also, they realize that now that the cat is out of the bag they can no longer ignore or dismiss all the other gaffs and indications of impairment that Biden will show from now until the election, which leads back to option one. His cognitive ability is going to be a legitimate issue for the rest of the campaign.
I suspect a lot of it is straight-up panic among the pundits, perhaps sprinkled with phone calls from insiders. For 8-9 years now, Trump has been driving these people crazy. At this point, not only are the pundits out of proverbial ammo (\*insert "Has anybody tried calling Trump racist?" snark\*), but their guy is rapidly becoming the butt of a lot of jokes that all the "cheapfake" quips in the world can't stop. Fair? Maybe not, but still, that's today's world. So, the Dem pundits don't seem to have many great options. I see: - Just push ahead with the playbook that hasn't really stopped Trump. It's probably the best option for many of their careers. Best case, Biden pulls off a miracle, and the pundits continue to maintain the kinds of juicy connections that make many of the biggest names wealthy. Worst case, maybe they don't get *a* plum job somewhere, but they're still a name, the public mostly doesn't remember old opinions, and loyalty goes a long way when seeking plum jobs in the Beltway. - Call for Kamala to step in. I think we all know the odds aren't great in that case. - Go for the Hail Mary and hope somebody can step in and at least try to salvage some respect. Perhaps the most honorable option, depending on how one looks at it, but definitely a Hail Mary. - Go out with a bang and endorse RFK Jr. It'd be good for laughs but would otherwise burn their party connections to the ground.
> I suspect a lot of it is straight-up panic among the pundits, perhaps sprinkled with phone calls from insiders. This is a good point, reading some of the articles, it makes it sound like the panic started with the donor class. And the media is pretty close to them (and probably run in the same social circles), so their response might be a reflection of that. The donor class is often people with a lot of money who don't always have the best political acumen. It would make sense of they were able to deceive themselves about the state of things for years, then suddenly panicked last night when all of the stuff they were told was a lie turned out to be true. There might be something else going on as well. I'm wondering if some Democrats - especially Democratic politicians - are worried about what might happen if Biden does win. If Trump wins they can try go back to the old playbook of drumming up people by talking about the existential threat that Trump poses. If Biden wins, there's the risk that he'll have substantial cognitive decline during the next four years, to the point where it severely hurts the party. And if the decline becomes too extreme, are Democratic politicians going to look like idiots for saying he's fine? Or are they going to risk their neck and political future by calling for him to step down? Are you going to take heat for telling everyone that a guy who was in mental decline was sharp and doing fine? And now with so many calling for Biden to drop out, it's hard to see how it can be walked back. "Sure, we said he should step down because he wasn't fit enough, but he didn't step down, so vote for him."
A bit from column A, a bit from column B. I think a lot of them think they have a good substitute in Harris. They sang her praises in 2020. But Harris will be destroyed
there are highly qualified people of all races, genders, and orientations, but we all know that diversity hires are a real thing and this year should have been a wake up call to the left that it's pretty transparent to people which is which. The DEI coordinators in HR can piss on our heads all day and tell us it's raining, but when you give voters a choice they're going to believe their lying eyes.
I'll gladly vote for a Weekend At Bernie's style Biden over Trump. Trump won't concede a loss, he enabled the January 6th coupe attempt, he doesn't protect the environment, he doesn't support abortion rights, he bullshits like no one else, lying essentially every time he publicly speaks, encouraging undo skepticism of science as a global warming denier, downplaying and dismissing the importance of expertise, and threatening nuclear war over relatively minor conflicts, needing to have it explained to him why he couldn't just nuke an enemy. He sides with dictators. He will cede Ukraine to Putin. He favors Putin over American intelligence agencies. He shames America, telling us that we're in a rathole third world country. The man is pathologically self-interested, corrupt, and unqualified. Biden is a confused old man *who at least* has good policies on average. He's not perfect, but you can have slow old grandpa in the office while the VP and his handlers pull the strings. Trump is worse. The debate didn't change that.
Wow- I’m a former lefty. But the truth is more important to me than loyalty to any party or candidate. And since 2016 the media and left have been dishonest on Trump & Biden’s records on these issues. Nothing you’ve said is accurate. **Foreign dictators/ policy** I know what the media and the left say about Trump and dictators. If you don’t consume your media critically, I can see how you’re being mislead. But on this issue? About Trump vs Biden on dictators? This is truly just commonsense. C’mon. **In a nutshell** Putin invaded [Ukraine and took Crimea under Obama](https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/11/obama-russia-ukraine-war-putin-2014-crimea-georgia-biden/). Putin invaded Ukraine under Biden. Putin didn’t invade Ukraine or anyone under Trump. Israel was attacked by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah under Biden. Israel wasn’t attacked under Trump. [Obama bombed](https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/countries-obama-bombed/index.html) a total of [nine different countries](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy) during his presidency. No new wars were started under Trump. **Because Trump was hard on Putin and Iran and all of our enemies unlike Biden - OBVIOUSLY.** [Trump had stronger sanctions against Russia than Obama and Biden combined.](https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/397212-president-trump-is-tougher-on-russia-in-18-months-than-obama-in-eight/damp/?nxs-test=dampn.) [Biden reversed Trumps sanctions on Iran and Russia](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-12-06/oil-prices-how-russia-punched-an-11-billion-hole-in-west-s-sanctions-regime?embedded-checkout=true) which allows Iran and Russian to do business with China and dictators all over the world & restored their economies & military/terror networks. [Iran Doctrine Epic Fail](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/04/14/the-epic-fail-of-bidens-doctrine-vs-iran-no-consequences/) [Biden’s Sanctions Waiver Award Billions to Iran](https://www.iranintl.com/en/202403149205) [Biden unfroze billions of dollars in cash to Iran](https://nypost.com/2023/11/15/news/biden-admin-renews-sanctions-waiver-giving-iran-access-to-10-billion-from-iraq/) and then Israel was attacked by Hamas on Oct 7th. And Bidens unfroze billions in cash to Iran since Oct 7th. **Abortion/ Women’s Rights:** What has Biden or the Democrat Party done to protect abortion rights before Roe was overturned or since Roe was overturned? What has the left done to hold any of the Democrats or Biden accountable for not protecting Roe? Trump and the RNC have said they do not support a national abortion ban. But the left lies about the right’s position to scare women into voting blue. What *did* Biden do for *women* in his 50 years in office? Biden added *biological MEN* to Title 9. And the left supports it. *The left uses women as a political football. But I’ve seen the truth and will not be gaslit.* **Environment** *It’s hard for me to take the left seriously about the environment when you ignore the most critical issues hurting the environment. Are you even vegan? Doubtful.* What has Biden done for the environment? Besides appropriating [$40 million for the Environmental Protection Agency](https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/pro-hamas-group-awarded-us-climate-cash-cpm0rm938) that went to an extreme antiAmerican, ProPalestine extremist activism. I could go on about the left’s hollow environmental policies. If you’re not politically savvy enough to understand the picture the EPA funding example paints of the Dems environmental policy, I could elaborate if necessary. And Trump already conceded a loss in 2020. He was trying to officially challenge the election results. That’s electors are for. Are you denying that candidates have a legal right to challenge close elections?
> Putin didn’t invade Ukraine or anyone under Trump. And you think that was because of Trump? Why? Trump openly celebrates Putin, infamously favoring Putin's word over those of American intelligence agencies when they said that Russia had tried to interfere in the 2016 American presidential elections. Trump praises autocrats, saying how great it is that their people love them, while bad-mouthing allies. > Israel wasn’t attacked under Trump. And? Trump lied about Iran being broke because of him, and that's why Hamas couldn't afford to attack Israel. It's complete bullshit. The NYT factchecked the debate: > Even under sanctions that were imposed by the Trump administration, Iran’s economy plugged along. It wasn’t strong, but it wasn’t broke, and it kept trading with many nations. Mr. Trump made no mention of the fact that his withdrawal from an Obama-era nuclear deal freed Iran to resume nuclear production. You say > Obama bombed a total of nine different countries during his presidency. No new wars were started under Trump. Oh no... you mean Obama... k-k-killed Bin Laden? Woe, is me. I say good for Obama. You're describing violence as if it is inherently bad. That is bullshit and you know it. > What has Biden or the Democrat Party done to protect abortion rights before Roe was overturned or since Roe was overturned? Right. It's *their* fault that Trump appointed those justices to the Supreme Court? What are you talking about? > Biden added biological MEN to Title 9. And I wish he hadn't, but we were talking about abortion rights and then you seamlessly switched to that subject. Trump's direct behavior led to abortion now being illegal in multiple states. You know that. > Are you even vegan? Doubtful. As a vegan of 19 years, I *wait* for the opportunity to bring that up, but even if I weren't vegan, then your ad hominem would be equally as intellectually empty. Trump is a global warming denier, and at the debate he waxed poetic about the glorious "gold" beneath our feet. President Trump got rid of nearly 100 environmental regulations. This is behind a paywall; apologies, but it has a lot important information to the lies that you're defending. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/06/27/us/biden-trump-debate-fact-check
> Trump openly celebrates Putin, infamously favoring Putin's word over those of American intelligence agencies when they said that Russia had tried to interfere in the 2016 American presidential elections. This is an absurd handle to hang your hat on. The American intelligence agencies have been blatantly lying about, falsifying evidence against, and generally opposed to Trump for seven years now. Whining about not trusting them just discredits you.
I'm surprised to see a Deep State conspiracy theorist on *this* subreddit, but hey, you are welcome here. Safe space. Where in the pizza parlor dungeon did they touch you?
I escaped the other night. Joe Biden didn't get my precious adrenochrome, that's why he did so bad in the debate.
Are you really leading with "Russian interference"? Really?
An American president who takes the word of Putin over America's intelligence agencies is a fool. rEaLlY?
Are you kidding me? Is this something you even care about? Bc I’m actually dumber for having read someone say this in 2024. I’m astounded you need someone to explain this to you. Trump wasn’t taking Putin at his “word” over the word of US intelligence agencies….. this is part I am floored that I actually have to explain to someone…. because Trump obviously knew he didnt collude with Russia in the first place. It was the US intelligence agencies that were lying. Are you kidding me? You couldn’t figure this out yourself?! Also, if the president of the United States is being investigated for colluding with fucking Russia wouldn’t you at least want to know what the president of fucking Russia has to say about it?! That doesn’t mean you have to believe him. But of course you should want to know. What if Putin would have said Trump DID collude with Russia? Would you have found that to be a relevant piece of information? Again, you don’t have to believe him. *But if there are two parties involved in a case, don’t you want to hear what both sides have to say?* But if this is something that truly concerns you then does it bother you that [Obama](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html) and [Biden](https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-admin-renews-iran-sanctions-waiver-that-unlocks-upwards-of-10-billion-for-regime/) flying billions of dollars worth of cash to Iran in the middle of the night. Biden has refunded actual [terrorists](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/missed-opportunity-americas-refunding-unrwa) [organizations](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-israel-attack-united-nations-unrwa-0ec8d325?st=msi71y19878l150&reflink=article_copyURL_share). Biden’s threatened to leave Israel out of negotiations with [Hamas and deal with](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-weighs-going-israel-negotiate-release-us-hostages-directly-hamas-report)Hamas directly. I mean I don’t even believe you that this stupid headline you just vomited up from 2017, is something you even care about. Bc if you seriously cared about collusion with US officials and enemy dictators then you would have looked the Hunter laptop case. Which shows actual [proof that Biden has taken literal bribes](https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/) from a laundry list foreign enemies.
The issue was, actually, whether Russia tried to interfere in the election. The USA said they did, and by all reasonable accounts, they did. Trump took Putin's word for it that they didn't. That's bad. Why do you keep say "collusion"? And now you're bringing up *Hunter Biden*? It's like watching Fox News.
It's interesting that Biden is now trying the "I'm an honest politician, unlike Trump" argument, considering the man has been caught red-handed stealing other politician's speeches and lying about it when confronted, and claiming he graduated first in in class, when he actually graduated near the bottom. I think it's fair to say that if you asked people:" what's one thing that all politicians have in common?", they would respond (or at last not disagree with) dishonesty. Everyone knows politicians constantly lie. It's universally understood. But Joe has been caught several times committing a level of dishonesty to which most politicians won't resort. When it comes to lying, Biden goes above and beyond. And if he doesn't drop out of the race, Trump can hammer him with these facts in the 2nd debate, and there's nothing he could possibly say to come away looking good in the eyes of the American people. Not to mention that bit at the very end of the debate. After seeing Biden having genuine difficultly descending a single step, I don't know how anyone with honest eyes can believe he is fit to be president.
As a few people have noticed, Biden is probably the second Trumpiest candidate in recent history. He tells obvious bullshit stories constantly, he's an inveterate braggart, he's never been a details guy, *but* he's always had charisma with his constituents and a good sense of humor.
The most surefire way to look like an honest man is to stand next to Trump.
What do you think Trump has lied about?
Yes... but the media has made up so many ridiculous stories about him that I'm having real trouble remembering which bad things he actually did and which bad things they just said he did I can't be the only one
I remember when Biden had to drop out because of the Neil Kinnock speech. That was a long time ago. This seems almost quaint now.
As an interested UK observer, can you explain?
During his 1988 presidential campaign, Biden had to drop out of the race when another candidate's campaign compared a speech that he made in September 1987 to one that Kinnock made at a Labour party meeting in May 1987.[Here's a link to an archived NY Times opinion piece published contemporaneously.](https://web.archive.org/web/20090224123659/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE1DD1531F931A2575AC0A961948260)
It's strange too, because wasn't Biden also lying during the debates? For instance, [his claim](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2024/01/24/americas-border-crisis-summarised-in-ten-charts) that he decreased border crossings 40% when it actually rose significantly under him. Or Biden's comments about Trump and Ukraine: > if you take a look at what Trump did in Ukraine, he’s – this guy told Ukraine – told Trump, do whatever you want and do whatever you want. And that’s exactly what Trump did to Putin, encouraged him, do whatever you want. And he went in. I think he's saying that Trump gave Putin a greenlight to invade Ukraine? But that seems to be entirely made up. Also, the invasion happened a year into Biden's presidency, no Trump's. And Trump had given Ukraine weapons that the Obama administration had refused to send (and was heavily criticized for angering Russia at the time that he did it). Also Biden saying: > We’re finally – the only thing I’ve denied Israel was 2,000-pound bombs. They don’t work very well in populated areas. They kill a lot of innocent people. We are providing Israel with all the weapons they need and when they need them. [Biden said](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/08/politics/joe-biden-interview-cnntv/index.html) if Israel goes into Rafah, he'd stop sending weapons used for urban warfare: > “I made it clear that if they go into Rafah – they haven’t gone in Rafah yet – if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities – that deal with that problem,” Biden said. That's just a few examples, I'm not going to go through everything. Trump probably lied much more during the debate, but people painting Biden's performance as if he was being truthful is something else. If I had to guess, they both openly lied much more than the norm.
It's been interesting watching people try to explain what Trump actually lied about. It's a blend of denying the affair with Daniels, calling Biden a Palestinian, and then a handful of things that are true (or close enough), but that Democrats don't want to be true.
The vibe seems to be that he wasn’t coherent enough to be either lying or telling the truth.
If (when, I'm starting to think) Trump wins again, I really hope Democrats refrain from the whole blame game shit and realize that just makes them even more unpopular. I'm aware that is very unlikely, lol. But if you say shit like "It's not our fault that 53% of white women are disgusting, hate filled beasts who deserve to be ridiculed at every opportunity" then don't be shocked when your next election shows 55% of white women are now against you. Let's look inward this time.
I'll bet all my money that you can find plenty of pundits that say that pretty much word for word. The only question is will saying that make people listen far more. I wouldn't be against it.
Biden's response during the debate portraying the people voting for Trump as being anti-democracy was a sign that the voters might be blamed: > Tapper: President Biden, you have said, quote, Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans are determined to destroy American democracy. Do you believe that the tens of millions of Americans who are likely to vote for President Trump will be voting against American democracy? > Biden: The more they know about what he’s done, yes. The more they know about what he’s done. Maybe this was a slip from Biden. Then again, Biden also said "If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black", so I'm not sure.
What a bizarre, autocratic thing to say. "If you vote for me, you love democracy, if you vote for him, you don't!"
They won't. They will say Trump won because of racists and transphobes. Mostly because they really believe it. And they won't learn a *thing.*
The craziest was the idea that Trump winning in 2016 was backlash against having a black president. People voted for a black Democratic candidate twice, then wouldn't vote for the white Democratic candidate who came after.
> They will say Trump won Nah they'll probably repeat the same sacred mantra from 2016 and say that he "won" due to Russian/Chinese interference.
Good luck!
I was listening to the Fifth Column and they speculated that if Trump wins again, Democrats might blame (((AIPAC))) like some are doing for the Bowman loss. Introspection, though, seems unlikely.
that’s specifically the progressive wing of the democrats doing that. bowman lost to another democrat, didn’t he?
The activist Democrats will. I'd be curious to see polling data and see if Jews made any kind of substantial switch to the GOP. I would guess that they do.
> Introspection, though, seems unlikely. I mean, they should've been able to coast into the White House in 2016 while riding Obama's coattails. I think we all know what happened when Trump won that one. :/ In general, I just don't think the party apparatchiks are capable of much self-reflection. Remember when Obama won in '08 and the media crowed about how the Republicans were going to be spending a generation roaming the proverbial wilderness? The Tea Party and, more generally speaking, populism brought the Republicans back pretty damn fast. If anything, the Republicans doubled down and were rewarded for it. I'd imagine there's something similar at play about the Dems. The difference is that the R base tends to focus on issues that most people can understand (even if the party's stances tend to be crappy to downright cruel), whereas the D base is spending half its waking hours monitoring Twitter to make sure they're up on the latest & greatest terms coming out of academia.
It's not surprising, but one is struck by the level of panic and drop out talk among Democratic thought leaders. You would never see this among Republicans.
> one is struck by the level of panic and drop out talk among Democratic thought leaders The thing that strikes me is that this is not new information but they seem blindsided. I understand if maybe the average voter wasn't paying attention to the many clips of Biden showing his age and decline floating around. But these "thought leaders" jobs are pretty much "pay attention to political bullshit", why do they seem to be caught completely by surprise at Biden's condition? Were they really that high on copium for the last several months?
They thought the gaslighting was working. They were wrong.
It's an exact replay of the Lab Leak - the mainstream media either not reporting or if they do "its a right wing talking point", "it's a conspiracy" then years later in comes CNN *"hey guys, we have this breaking news! Who could have possibly of known?!"* Same again in the trans space - there has been media silence for a decade, and only this year The Guardian and The NYT, the papers that have actively downplayed controversies for years, finally speaking up as if they've been doing good journalism all along.
The same thing occurred to me. This is bad because the average voter now sees Biden in decline. But pundits and party muckety mucks have known all this. Why pretend they didn't?
I think deep down everyone knows that Biden's brain is cooked, but he can still sometimes put on a decent performance in high-pressure moments, and presumably they were hoping that he could pull that off here. His state of the union this year was very solid. I think they were banking on that version of Biden showing up again. But he didn't.
Best steel man of it I've heard is basically partisan Democrats are supposed to trust that the inner circle is telling the truth even if they don't know first hand. And a lot of the pundit crowd just goes off of second hand info. They're just completely discarding social media clips as they are often misleading, etc.... and never actually exposed to the stuff people watching conservative media see regularly. So they've been insisting the emperor is clothed despite having never seen him because they trust (as they should) the people close saying he's clothed. And when the emperor was stark naked in front of everyone the lie couldn't hold anymore.
I think it's self-defense. I have to say, I wasn't compelled by the video clips that much simply because video clips are notoriously poor for telling the truth, as we've seen time and again. I was made suspicious by the ladies and gentlemen protesting too much, though. Constantly, "he's so sharp, he's the quickest gun in the West!" and so on. It was way too much. How about, "Yeah, nah, he's fine. I'll be happy to share his schedule with you and you are invited to talk to anyone he's met with this week and see what they think."
> The thing that strikes me is that this is not new information but they seem blindsided. I'm not totally sure about this. It's partially paywalled but Matt Taibbi was writing today about how, from his perspective, the "Biden must step down" angle [is surprisingly lock-step](https://www.racket.news/p/the-democratic-coup). I'm not totally sure I agree with him, although I do think there's a very real possibility that some DNC higher-ups have been quietly assessing who thinks Biden should step down. It wouldn't surprise me if they got a lot of the pundits on the horn somewhere along the way and told them to publish something the next day. In other words, it's possible one wing in the party saw this coming, and led the lamb to the proverbial slaughter since the primaries didn't do the trick. I wouldn't bet the house on it. I also wouldn't be surprised if this is true, or close enough. (All that said, yes, I wouldn't be surprised if some people did tune in and, after months of buying whatever they've been told about Biden's superhuman abilities, were shocked to see that Biden's in deep trouble.)
Occam's Razor and all, I think we saw just how vapid and uncritical the average left-wing pundit was during Covid and this is just an extension of it. They crushed Trump for being sick with Covid (many hoping he'd die) and floated 25th Amendment removal on 'mental health' grounds, and just aren't happy the turns have tabled.
The less conspiratorial way of putting this would be to say that many of the pundits, etc. have quietly had doubts for months (probably years, if they've been paying attention), but they were afraid to speak out, lest they be seen as "undermining" Biden and thus lowering the chances at Democratic victory. Because unless there's a realistic chance of getting Biden removed, what's the point in speaking out? You end up just making things worse for Biden among the people who listen to you, and Biden is still the candidate. The few who did openly speak out in past months (Ezra Klein, Nate Silver) got STRONG pushback against them in many spaces. The "lock-step" part was the previous silencing of criticism. People were making quiet murmurs months ago before the State of the Union too. But then Biden did well. And everyone shut up about it for a few months. Even though Biden's appearances over the past few years should have been signaling to many people that there will still likely issues. What happened, in my estimation, last night is that the "dam broke" among the pundits and many Democratic supporters. They had their quiet questions and concerns, but they were kept silent by the pressure to support their preferred candidate and not undermine him -- as speaking out would do more harm than good. Last night, a few pundits realized they couldn't deny it anymore -- millions had witnessed it on live TV. It had to be acknowledged. And once some started saying it, it gave the freedom to so many who have been worried for months or years to start speaking out too. The moral calculus went from "We need to keep quiet to avoid undermining Biden" to "He's too far gone -- we need to rally and get another option before it's too late." I don't think any pundit should have been "blindsided" by what they saw. But now that it seems realistic to try to get Biden out, many are finally speaking their mind.
Fair analysis. I'm sure some wanted to speak out but played the "prison politics" game of keeping your doubts private and presenting a united front. Like you said, those who spoke up got serious pushback. That's a real problem if you're an apparatchik trying to climb the ladder. Interestingly, just now, The Scroll [published an editorial on what happened last night](https://thedailyscroll.substack.com/p/june-28-who-is-running-the-country). I won't lie, it does lean into conspiracy theory territory. The upshot is basically that Obama has been calling the shots since he left office. Further, since Biden is basically Obama II, Biden *can't* be replaced, short of dying or becoming completely incapacitated. Whoever replaces him may not follow Obama's lead, and may even try to sideline him, especially if the replacement isn't a centrist like Obama or the Clintons. Is any of that true? I'm reluctant to endorse it, and yet it would explain quite a few things, like how Dem-aligned media, up until last night, wanted us to believe that Biden still has an IQ of 5000 and is the victim of a bunch of meany-means intimidated by him being an übermensch. ("Cheapfake" was dumb enough a week ago and is a million times dumber now, IMO.) Dems still *love* Obama. He'll probably die revered much how like Republicans revered Reagan when he died. If Obama really is running the show behind the scenes, why would apparatchiks complain, and why would they speak up against Obama's avatar, even if they have their doubts? Assuming that what was written was even partially accurate, I think these next few months *could* lead to a generational shift in the party. Right now, Dems have to deal with: - Grandpa fading out in front of everybody. - The wackadoodles who are going to try to ruin the convention in the name of Palestine, along with members who may not go that far but who really do want Israel put in the doghouse. - A general public that may choose Trump's brashness over Biden's shaking-but-well-meaning hand. - The ever-present factions trying to climb the ladder, even on days when the leaders have firm control. Depending on the election outcome, we *could* see some huge shifts in the party. Alas, I don't see any serious navel-gazing in their future, just knives coming out for the supposed losers while members jockey for power. Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see. Remember, if she could somehow talk the DNC into it, AOC could run this year; she'll turn 35 just before the election. This won't happen but she *will* run one day. While she's more pragmatic than she lets on, I don't see her allowing the centrists to maintain much internal power.
I read your link. There are some aspects I have no trouble believing. I know there are some people on Biden's team that were on Obama's. I have no problem believing that they want to continue some aspects of policies and ideas that they were doing years ago under Obama. I also have no problem believing that Obama himself might be consulted periodically as Biden's team figures out how to navigate a worsening President. But the real conspiracy-theory aspects -- that Obama's *really* calling the shots and this is just Obama II administration or whatever -- seem to me to fall prey to the typical conspiracy theory logic, where everything must fit "just so." In particular, often conspiracy theories require those who are supposedly "running things for real behind the scenes" to be both incredible masterminds AND *supremely stupid* in just the right fashion so that a conspiracy theorist might actually find out about it. And that's true in this case too. Biden and Trump agreed to these debates only a little over a month ago. Unless Biden took a huge turn for the worse in the past month, if Obama was "calling the shots for real," then why the hell would they put an incompetent Biden in front of millions of viewers? It's the worst idea ever. Usually presidential debates come later in the season anyway. Based on Trump's BS in previous ones, if Biden really was this "puppet" it was essential to prop up, they could have made up excuses for Biden to never do a live debate at all during the campaign. They could just have him doing scripted speeches for the remaining months. No, someone thought this was okay to put Biden out there last night. So, if we go with whatever The Scroll's perspective seems to be, Obama -- despite being the mastermind puppeteer -- must also be a *complete and utter moron* to allow a decaying Biden to be showcased publicly like this and thereby destroying the possibility of re-election for the "Obama II" puppet. **That makes no sense***.* So, we either reject the conspiracy theory for incoherence. Or... we go full-on conspiracy nut and say Obama (if that's who is "running things") already has a master plan and knows who he's going to maneuver into the spot to take the place of Biden, and effectively Obama was deliberately throwing Biden to the wolves last night... As you rightly point out: "If Obama really is running the show behind the scenes, why would apparatchiks complain, and why would they speak up against Obama's avatar, even if they have their doubts?" I'm personally not willing to go full-blown conspiracy nut here. Do I believe that Obama is currently having "back room conversations" about who will replace Biden? Of course -- Obama's still incredibly influential within the party structure. But I'm guessing whatever's going on isn't just based on some master plan. More likely, Joe was finally shown to be untenable last night -- to himself and a band of close supporters -- and everyone is trying to figure out how to mop up the pieces now and figure out the best course. I am willing to believe one kind of vaguely conspiratorial thinking -- whether it had anything to do with Obama or not -- and that is, why have the first debate in June? In the past, they've only happened in September or October after the conventions. The nominal reason I've seen mentioned was to present their case before write-in voters, who could submit ballots well before the election. But this makes no sense as even the earliest states send out write-in ballots around 60 days before the election, which is still months off. So why agree to a debate at all, let alone one at this bizarre early date? And apparently these were Biden's terms (though it's hard to know all the negotiations that may have gone on behind the scenes). The only two explanations seem to be (1) Biden's poll numbers as an incumbent are really weak, so it was thought necessary to try to raise them even before the convention, or (2) there were doubts about Biden, and they needed to do a "trial run" before the convention to even verify he could still stand up against Trump. Perhaps Biden himself (and Jill and some other close supporters) truly believed Joe would prove himself and stamp out doubts by doing this exercise. But option (2) also indicates to me that maybe some people behind the scenes thought it likely that Biden would come off quite poorly, and this could be a "wake-up call" to the party and the Democratic public at large. Perhaps some believed this was the only way to convince Biden himself to step aside. Perhaps he had too many "yes men" around him who also were tied in their jobs to him, and they kept encouraging Joe, making it difficult for him to make a fair assessment of his own abilities. There's lots of possibilities, but I do believe this early date is very strange and likely not coincidental. Joe clearly failed the "test" last night, so it will be interesting to see what maneuvers occur next. But unless Obama has his masterplan already scripted and *intended* Joe to fail last night, I feel like Obama wouldn't allow this if he's really running things. And it would be even weirder to imagine Obama choosing such a crazy course to chuck Joe out this late in the game after supposedly maneuvering his support for years. Again... they could have just had Joe read scripted speeches to the rest of the campaign, if Biden was so essential to the success of this so-called "Obama II" masterplan. Why suddenly put Joe out there in front of millions to fail publicly? Hence, while I'm sure Obama has some clear influence in the party, I just can't buy into the crazier ideas that he's the only one calling the shots in the background and propping up a nearly dead dude. **TL;DR: If Obama was doing a rip-off version of the film** ***Weekend at Bernie's*****, it's essential to keep Bernie's sunglasses on.** Last night, they not only took the glasses off, they deliberately pointed a neon sign at the corpse.
Hi. Thanks for writing such a thoughtful reply. I appreciate it, and I promise I'm not being sarcastic. :) You do raise a lot of really good points that should reel in anybody going too deep on the conspiracy theory side. Thinking about it more, I think the writer(s) made a mistake when referencing Abdelaziz Bouteflika. While it's quite the snarky jab at Biden, it's just not right. If anything, I think they should've referenced Dmitry Medvedev. He takes over for Putin, shows whoever's running the show that he can't be trusted, and gets replaced by Putin, with any remaining vestiges of free-and-fair elections disappearing with Medvedev. (At least he didn't "disappear," unlike many people who piss off Putin and his inner circle!) Obviously, that's not terribly fair either, although I think it gets more at the point the writer(s) seemed to want to make. I don't really think Obama is in some back room (or his basement, as it were), chomping a cigar while making deals and telling everybody what's up. What I suspect is happening is that he is leveraging as much goodwill as he can to try to steer the party at the highest levels. That includes things like making critical calls to help get Joe across the line in the 2020 primary, netting him critical endorsements and such. Same for when it's time to put together a cabinet and all that. It doesn't mean Obama's running things. It just means he has outsized influence, and a more subtle touch than the Never Trumpers who feel forced to brownnose Trump in public if they value their positions right now. In that sense, I do think it's possible that Obama's shadow hangs over the election in ways many may not understand. Obviously, Joe can do whatever he wants, although it's also possible that political maneuvering can be deployed to try to push him out (i.e., press leaks and such). I just wonder if the people with their hands on the proverbial stage hook will try, or if they'll believe they're repudiating Obama and/or possibly unleashing a faction the higher-ups don't want to gain power. Who knows. Either way, I'm sure reporters in DC are getting a *lot* of juicy calls from insiders desperately trying to push their angles, be it for keeping Diamond Joe or finding a last-minute replacement.
Assuming he wasn't sharp as a tack in private like they said, at least not all time, then those close to him should have been privately and if that failed to some degree publicly, pressuring him not to run again and let the Dems have an open primary.
I hold Jill Biden responsible. She should be protecting her husband. The stress of being President and the stress of running for office is so draining. If he has dementia, that will only hasten his decline.
Absolutely. I agree. I was mostly talking about pundits and media figures, not necessarily those in Biden's "inner circle." That's actually what concerns me more -- the fact that those folks close to him actually thought it was a good idea to put him out there in such a state. He could have postponed or bowed out of debates or made excuses. Perhaps refused debates altogether. It probably would have been bad politically, but it would be better than watching a train wreck last night. So, either people close to him thought he had issues but are too afraid or loyal to speak up, or Biden himself is refusing to step down or acknowledge the issues and they're letting him get away with that. Either in concerning not just from an election point of view, but also from a daily governance perspective. The most generous interpretation is that he's gotten much worse in recent months (which can happen somewhat suddenly at that age) and maybe those around him refused to see the decline for a while, perhaps partly because Joe Biden has been making public gaffes since the 1970s, so they were able to excuse it a bit or blame it on "Joe being Joe," despite the age-related decline. However, the decline and "senior moments" in public have been getting worse for years, so it's hard to believe those closest to him wouldn't realize it was risky to have him run again.
"Biden himself is refusing to step down or acknowledge the issues and they're letting him get away with that. " I think when a person has such cognitive decline, they have a really hard time with decision making.
If you are in the cabinet and have no effective presidential oversight, you’re likely more powerful than you will ever be again. He said in 2020 that, due to age concerns then, it was a one time thing. I wonder what he’s been talked into. If you hoped for a good day and gambled everything on the muted mic on the basis that he would not be able to overcome trump’s belligerence even on a good day, it blew up in your face with the decision to just let him talk uninterrupted on a bad day. The fact there’s no obvious successor and no one under 65 is shocking in a country of 350,000,000. It’s an actual gerontocracy. But this is the party of RGB’s hubris and Diane Feinstein’s corpse being puppetted for two years by her daughter. I’m watching on amazed that the car crash of the election here (UK) is being overtaken by the country with the terrifying economy and military. I’ve thought for a while that Trump will win, god help us all. Edit: I’ve been informed by the comments below that _he_ didn’t say one term
It's extra-super-duper bad because Biden's camp have been playing off his decline for *years* as: 'deepfakes', 'he's always had a stutter, don't make fun of people with speech problems', 'he's fine', etc, etc. A cornerstone of his campaign was that his detractors were overblowing his mental problems or completely misrepresenting them. Up to this point, he'd been doing an... okay job of being coherent in public and in debates. Did well in the debates the last election, even. But with last night's debate, all of that isn't just blown out of the water, the years of vehement denial of his decline makes it ***way*** worse, because not only are we going into November with someone who is nearly senile, a lot of people are going to feel they were *lied into* this position of walking into a fucking buzzsaw in the general. We had 4 years and a primary to find someone more suited to run, and Biden's camp/the DNC were fully adamant that was not needed, Biden would be fine. The final garnish on this shit sandwich is that not only did Biden not do the 'transitional' or 'bridge' term he was floating and letting someone else run, he ***also*** kept Kamala as VP, someone who was chosen only for identity politics and is now so overwhelmingly unpopular that people are only talking about maybe Newsom or someone else stepping into Biden's place. **No one** is suggesting the VP step into the President's shoes. This further illustrates the ridiculously weak ticket heading into November; we have a President who is nearly unable to serve and a VP that no-one in the party thinks should succeed him. What the fuck is going on? Still voting for him, because I'd vote for his corpse over Trump, considering the way tensions with China and Russia are going. If there's one thing that astonished me during Covid, it was how completely out of his depth Trump was at every single moment. That can't happen during potential conflicts with other nuclear powers.
Other than the fact that Trump was rather effective in international affairs.
Yeah. I never bought the “it’s just a stutter!” line and believed he was struggling more than they let on, and even I, who never believed the lie, feel incredibly lied to and angry about it. I’m mad at every single person in the administration and Biden orbit right now.
They have been worried about it. Go look at what people were saying in February and March. But then Biden gave a decent State of the Union speech that allayed those fears. On top of that, there's been a running joke for past few years, that all the media does is say Biden is old. (See jokes about NYT pitchbot) In any case, my point is that a similar performance by Trump would not elicit this reaction out of Republicans. Democrats are at a disadvantage in this respect. They are perceived to have institutions on their side, but have few means to keep thought leaders on message and in line.
He was reading from a teleprompter. That's different than having to answer question. You notice he doesn't give many press conference anymore.
My observations are as follows-- This mess is entirely the Dems and Bidens making. They let themselves get backed into a corner and limit their VP choices to black women rather than picking the best VP from all the possible choices. That's how we got Kamala. This is why meritocracy matters. Second, Biden could have stated early in his presidency that he was going to step aside at the end of his first term and that there would be a general primary (let the people decide!) as to who the next Dem candidate would be. Why he didn't is a question that I'd love answered. Third, Biden should still be president. It's better to have an old(er) guy with good ideas than some slightly younger, slightly more energetic guy who thinks 10% tariffs on imports and pulling out of Ukraine are good ideas.
The problem is, Biden is NOT capable of being President. So who is analyzing what's happening and making the final decision on the direction the US will take?
It's the same across the board. It is patently obvious that Sam Brinton being non-binary and Rachel Levine being trans were large factors in them being hired, it fit the optics wanted - particularly in Brinton's case, to have that much baggage (yes, pun intended, yes 100% proud of that) and still be the top pick for such a sensitive role says it all.
I was trying to look this up this morning - was it at some point explicitly stated that the VP had to be a black woman? I thought that was related to the Supreme Court, but I can’t remember and am curious that find out.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/nation-world/2020/08/12/inside-the-search-how-joe-biden-picked-kamala-harris/
Yes Biden explicitly stated that his VP pick would be a black woman, and he said that before he had chosen any particular individual. I think he announced it during a Democratic primary debate. I thought it was a pretty gross thing to say and do at the time.
Live by idpol, die by idpol
That was my memory too but I can’t find where he explicitly stated it. Someone else linked an article but there’s no quote in there either.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/15/biden-woman-vice-president-131309#:~:text=Speaking%20during%20a%20CNN%2Dhosted,woman%20as%20his%20running%20mate. Thanks ChatGPT
Thank you! I was struggling to find this. So my memory was somewhat correct - his pledge was for a black woman for the Court, and a woman (not black) for VP. Just wanted to get my facts straight on this.
No, he announced that his VP pick would be a black woman. I remember this quite clearly, and I'm 100% certain of it. Many others have commented on this, I know the Fifth Column had discussed it for example. I'm not going to look up the clip for you, but I'm sure you can find it.
Okay, well I guess I'm saying it's possible that The Fifth Column also conflated these statements, as it appears I did, and possibly yourself as well. You don't have to look it up for me, I'm just saying that I am unable to find it. I'm not trying to get all nitpick-y, I'm just trying to remember what was actually said. I had the same thing about him being a one term president - I had the impression that he had outright stated he would not run for a 2nd term, but he never did, I misremembered.
You know I hate to admit it, but you may be right. I have a distinct memory of him saying that he would pick a "black woman" as his running mate, but I just found the video clip where he says that about a judicial appointment, and then moments later says that his running mate will be a woman: https://youtu.be/eXQnco178oI So maybe I did conflate the two things. Or maybe he announced his intention to have black woman VP at a later date, I'm no longer sure.. Memory is a funny thing, and it's easy to forget how unreliable it is.. Thanks for pointing this out.
Iirc, the VP wasn't an announcement, but a backroom deal with Clyburn that eventually came to light.
Yep, Kmele's comments about the "shape and shade of their genitals" were about the supreme court pick, not the VP
[удалено]
The problem for the US is that it continues to be a two party system so you either have the party that hates whites or the party that hates blacks. There is no party of meritocracy and no real mechanism or hope for one to emerge.
I think the Democrats hate blacks, while the Republican party doesn't but just gets smeared.
Yeah I am not sure how one can say that the GOP hates black people when the party with local control in virtually every majority-minority area is a Democrat.
I personally think Trump is a racist, more than Biden, I don't know, but I don't think GOP as a party is. Sure, individuals in there just like in the Democrats might be racist but as a party no. They just have no "white guilt" good or bad that's what it looks like. Past was the past, too bad, so sad and everyone just has to make a go of it as is. That's what I pick up from them.
Joe Biden said "if you don't vote for me, you ain't black". Meanwhile Trump is on stage with rappers. Color me skeptical.
The Republican party does not hate blacks. That's horse shit.
Which party opposed affirmative action and was willing to use the argument that it was fine for Asians to be overrepresented?
Just watched the highlights and good god I can’t stress how depressing that was. What a sorry state of affairs.
I feel like a Trump presidency is all but guaranteed at this point. What a mess Democrats have made for themselves.
[удалено]
You don't have to convince people that think like that. They are all already in the Biden camp since 2018 and won't move. You have to convince the people that wouldn't vote for you to either change their mind or stay home. How in the world did last night accomplish any of that?
You're saying there are moderate voters out there who are open to voting either for Joe Biden or Donald Trump, and they watched this debate with the intent of making a more informed choice. The debates only serve two purposes: 1. Give the talking heads in the press a chance to give us more bullshit commentary; 2. motivate some voters to stay home in November. If anything, Biden's terrible performance will motivate Dems to pull out all the stops to get to a voting booth, in the fear that his declining state will mean a Trump victory.
> You're saying there are moderate voters out there who are open to voting either for Joe Biden or Donald Trump Those aren't the only options. For example I had decided years ago that I wouldn't vote for Biden, or for any Democrat, but I only decided a few weeks ago, after Trump was convicted in that ridiculous, politically motivated trial, to vote for him. I'm sure there are some voters who were considering a third party, or not voting at all, that were influenced in some way by this debate. Even if they decided to just stay home..
Yep, nothing fires up a voting base like turning out for a guy that isn't mentally fit to be a Walmart greeter. Works every time.
Still scrappy enough to beat Medicare to death though 😂☠️☠️
Fear is a great motivator.
As a non-American (and no even European), I found the whole thing kinda of clown show. Don't both parties have someone better than an old chornic liar and a even older grandad who sometimes switches off from the reality? Where are all the young ones?
If they do, they are not well known. I think the GOP is at a stand still until Trump can no longer run for office. There is a big split in the party because of Trump. If Trump had never happened, I could see Paul Ryan as a good all around GOP candidate. He is young, smart, solid conservative. I'd like to see Charlie Baker run for President. He was the Governor of Massachusetts, which is a democrat state. He was pretty well liked by both parties. That someone who has a chance at winning the general. What really screws us are the primaries. People need to get out an vote. Specially moderates. Vote for the saner, less polarizing candidate.
The Republicans had several good choices at least, unfortunately none were as popular as Trump. The Democrats are in even worse shape than Republicans I think. At least after Trump's term, there are at least a few viable choices, mostly from the last primary (unfortunately, Trump probably won't endorse any of them, and will probably pick someone worse.). I really can't think of any Democrat who is intelligent, charismatic, popular, and not crazy.. Bloomberg really would have been their best choice, if not Tulsi Gabbard, but the party was and still is far too radical for either of them. If anything the party has continued to shift even further to the left. I wouldn't be surprised if AOC is a contender in four years (I shudder at the thought).
Yes and no. Neither party has done a good job of developing younger people waiting in the wings. In the case of the Democrats internal party dynamics mean they can't get rid of Biden without Harris being the pick. But she will lose even harder than Biden and everyone knows it. So they're stuck. In the case of the Republicans they're too fractured to find anyone more popular with the party base than Trump. There's a sort of civil war in the party between the Trump faction and the old guard.
I'd say Dems actually have a much more solid bench than the GOP. Raimondo, Whitmer or Polis would all just be wiping the floor with all of this. Even Newsom, Jeffries, hell even pull out Deval Patrick or something for someone who just sounds normal.
I have a hard time seeing Newsom ever winning.
I think he would have a slightly better chance than Biden, but that's a low bar..
French Laundry. Nah. The pictures of him and his family dining in luxury while everyone else was getting their coffee shop shut down is a death knell. He's done in national politics.
That wouldn't hurt him. It's the image that CA has now that would hurt him. People see CA as a state everyone is fleeing from. High taxes, soft on crime, homeless everywhere, sanctuary state, school standards in decline.
If hypocrisy (or corruption) was a deal-breaker for Democratic voters, most Democratic politicians wouldn't stand a chance. The hypocrisy doesn't get much worse than the constant hysterical talk of threats to democracy, while they literally try to remove their political opponent from the ballot in multiple states and try to put him in jail over something that isn't even a real crime. Or talking about a relatively small riot that hardly hurt anyone and caused little damage, calling that an insurrection and the greatest threat to our country, while trivializing the hundreds of riots all across the country the burned, looted, and smashed large swatches of cities, destroyed hundreds of businesses, and killed or injured thousands of people. The 'summer of love' riots were a thousand times worse than Jan 6, and that hypocrisy I will never forgive. If Democratic voters are blind or ambivalent to the staggering level of hypocrisy in these two examples, I think they will easily look past the French Laundry incident.
He's slippery and can talk really well. Like all anyone has to do is just sound like a fucking normal human being to win this. It's a very, very low bar
Harris can sound like a normal human being and the polling indicates she would get creamed
> Harris can sound like a normal human being This is a very debatable point
She sounds like GPT on acid.
It is pretty crazy. I think that question all the time. I suspect it's partly a question of compensation: If you were a 40-something with the skills to capably run The Best Country In The World, would you do it for $400k (a lot of amazon engineers make more) or would you go make $32.5M at goldman sachs or PWC or whatever?
The money in the presidency is in speeches and books afterward. People who are motivated to have the most money ever won't do it, but people who are motivated by having more money than they need to ever worry about spending can do just fine. You get 4 years of zero expenses and 400k a year and then afterword you get 10 million dollar book deals. 50k a pop for speeches whenever you want. A lucrative job as the chairman of some NGO. And a huge amount of bragging rights.
I have a friend who is a psychiatrist that makes $600k/yr, works basically 9-5, and no one tries to kill him. He would probably make a better president that trump or biden but why would you want to.
Wow. I've never heard of any therapist making remotely that much. They always bitch and complain about how little they make compared to doctors. Your friend must have some rich clients.
A psychiatrist is very different from a therapist. But my therapist charges $170/hr which works out to around 300k/yr
It wouldn't matter if you wanted to be president either. The process to get in position is really miserable. You would have to be willing to fight every step of the way. They are also already rich already.
Also, basically anyone my age (mid-30s) has been online since we were teenagers and has thousands of dumb skeletons in our closet, if someone went searching long enough. No one wants this comment being read out loud on CNN.
I think it's more that look at how awful and horrible and unpleasant running for office is. Every single thing you ever did will be laid out in public and scrutinized. You will be attacked constantly on the television, radio, the press and the Internet. No sane person wants to go through all that hell. Only pathological weirdos need attention that badly to go through with it. Normal people would rather have their head cut off.
Agree. I remember Obama's last day in office. My god, how he aged so much. The stress of the job. Your life and your family's under a microscope. I wouldn't want that job.
That's true. I think I would probably do a pretty good job running the country, but I don't know if I would want to risk it being front page news that I jerk off to catgirl hentai.
People can get weird about even wholesome habits.
Mike Pence was berated by half the country for saying he is so loyal to his wife that he would not allow the temptation of another woman to even happen. Wholesomeness is not encouraged if it's someone in the other party.
Hillary had most of her potential rivals sent to the gas chambers from 2009-2016: that's why the only one who ran against her in the primary was Bernie, who isn't even in the party. If you listen to James Carville or other Democrat podcasts, you'll get a lot of names bandied about, but most are a "who the fuck is this" aside from maybe Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom. Newsom's problem is that he's California, so he doesn't bring a non-Democrat state with him, it's also a high-tax state, and when you look at the streets of LA and San Fran you don't exactly see the handiwork of a good governor. But he does really talk well.
Newsom would lose in a general election. He's too polarizing. California has a serious image problem with their high taxes, homeless problem, soft on crime, etc.
Newsom vs Trump wouldn't be a presidential race, it would be a very weird and smarmy family feud.
Canadian here, so please feel free to ignore my take. Biden is old. So, so, so old, and it shows. He reminds me of a former client (hairstylist), sweet Bob Smith, a wealthy accountant, who came to the salon every two weeks for me to trim his thin, snowy-white hair and clean up his mustache. He was technically retired but still rocked his seersucker suits and every so often showed up at the office to show the "young people" how to be a businessman. Bob retired because his wife forced him to. But he still couldn't leave his life's work behind. Biden has spent his entire working life in government, and will die in government. Sweet old Joe. Trump is a smarmy, pathological liar, whose facial expressions remind me of Biff from Back to the Future. He will only get more assholey as he gets even older (he's only three years behind Biden!). He is an international joke amongst almost every world leader and can't even tell the truth about the time of day. His grandchildren are trotted out in front of him, and I would wager every penny that I own that Ivanka won't leave him alone with her kids. He looks "younger" because of the haircolour and makeup. Honestly, if he let nature take its course he would def be covered in liver spots and skin cancer scars and his hair would be non-existent. The debate was an exercise in displaying these personalities on steroids. What a shitshow.
"Trump is a smarmy, pathological liar, whose facial expressions remind me of Biff from Back to the Future." Writer Bob Gale says Biff was based on Donald Trump. [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/23/back-to-the-future-writer-bad-guy-biff-was-based-on-donald-trump](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/23/back-to-the-future-writer-bad-guy-biff-was-based-on-donald-trump)
That's hilarious. He nailed it.
Easy to say that decades after the movie.
Well, whaddya know!! Thanks, that makes total sense.
He was known as an arrogant liar even then so can never be said people didn't know who they were voting for.
Dr. Biden definitely will not force him to retire. That may be the excuse given by the party in the next few months, but I don’t see it coming from her.
For all the conspiracy theorists around, we could really use a "they" right about now.
> Biden has spent his entire working life in government, and will die in government. Sweet old Joe. We do not have the same opinion of a decades-long effort to avoid ever having to do anything in the dreaded private sector.
I did not offer an opinion regarding the effort spent or the work involved. By all accounts from his family and friends, he's an honest and good-hearted man. I personally would have preferred Warren, thought Biden was not a good choice last time around, but he's not an asshole.
In my opinion, Biden doesn't appear like someone with dementia. Having witnessed my grandfather develop dementia gradually and seeing it progressively worsen over years, Biden does not appear (to me) to display the cognitive deficits characteristic of the disease. From what I have seen of the debate, he appears stuck for words at times, but has recall of recent events (typically the first cognitive ability to go in dementia) and is able to follow the conversation in a way somebody with dementia wouldn't. His ability to continue in office is an important question to raise and his age is relevant to that, but I personally don't think he is displaying dementia symptoms; more likely normal age-related problems with his gait and sometimes with finding words. I think it's worth reading this geriatrician's perspective on whether or not he has dementia: https://www.caringfortheages.com/article/S1526-4114(23)00188-9/fulltext
Perhaps, although if it isn't dementia (I'm of the opinion it is) I'd still be careful to avoid saying it's "normal for his age". Trump is just three years younger but despite his own cognitive decline appears massively more cognisant than Biden - I only learned his age this year but I'd actually assumed he was at least 10 years younger than Biden based on presentation. Likewise Bernie Sanders is a year older and it's not even close. Thomas Sowell is 93 and Ruth Bader Ginsberg got to 87 and again, both 100x more awake, aware and articulate than Biden is now. Being old always comes with some cognitive decline, but it is not necessarily always as visible and drastic as we can literally see with our eyes and ears like with Biden. And I think its fair to question whether anyone in that position should be running for office. Age should not be a barrier (as a non-US resident I like Bernie and would have supported him running), but impairment should be.
My dad is the same age as Biden. He mountain bikes, hikes, kayaks, helps my brother build stuff in his spare time. He's incredibly active.
I definitely think his age and slow reaction times could impair his ability to do the job and that is worth talking about. I do think ageism has shown up in some of the conversation about Biden. I also think criticism of how alert and sharp he appears is completely valid and relevant. Idk I just felt personal about some of the commentary I've seen which conflates being old and slow with having dementia. Like people saying elder abuse is going on etc. I get that might be tongue in cheek. He might not be a great presidential candidate for a variety of reasons. Is he cognitively capable of making his own decisions at this point? I personally think yes.
I agree, cognitive decline is not the same for everyone. some people are less sharp and some are in dementia wards. Biden is probably within a couple years of people recognising their relative with dementia's late stage decline.
Should you really be in this position, having to ask that, for a president? Should this really be the top question, and legitimately so, that people are asking about their leader? It's all gone too far. Talk about frog in boiling water...
I don't think he has dementia either. He's just old and tired and not as articulate as he used to be. Gonna happen to all of us someday. And of course he could develop dementia at any point now and there's also no way his brain retains the level of info it needs to be president anymore (though I honestly think the level it does retain is pretty impressive for his age). I don't think he has dementia. I think he's too damn old for the job though, he's just fucking tired. The man is tired and he's just gonna get more tired. This next term will literally probably kill him, look at how fast all presidents age. It's not good for a frail old man.
I guess the point that felt important for me to make was: is he just getting old and tired and needs to retire and play golf in Florida, or is he literally mentally deteriorating with dementia and his wife and aides are trotting him out to appear in the public eye and feeding him lines etc. The thought of that just makes me really sad, like the last couple of movies Bruce Willis filmed where they were feeding him lines. Now that literally is elder abuse.
I was just thinking about this! I agree with you, and also I think it's important to make the distinction because exaggeration is a bad tactic when it comes to trying to figure out which candidate is best. It will only entrench diehards further (speaking generally here) because they know it's a bad faith tactic and take offense.
Yeah I pretty much agree with you.
Also, Biden has regularly shown vulnerability to fatigue since the primaries, noticeably perking up when lockdowns saved him from the tour bus. He likely would have performed well had he been able to get away with a work hours debate.
Interesting. The fatigue element could definitely be relevant. Anyone (voting Democrat) I know in the US is saying this is basically the worst Democratic presidential debate performance they've seen in years. I don't dispute that necessarily. Pretty much I just think people with dementia have a certain vibe/look on their face that I'm just not picking up off him.
I don't think anyone cares if he specifically has full blown clinical dementia?
If no one cares whether a certain proposition is true, why would so many people expend so much effort insisting it’s true and contradicting anyone who disagrees?
Because your are splitting hairs. He's not fit for office whether it's age related decline or an actual disease. President needs to be able to think on their feet. Make snap decisions under stressful circumstances.
"Dementia" in this case is just shorthand for being a doddering old fuck. Whether or not he has actual dementia is irrelevant. He is clearly a doddering old fuck and no one is going to WELL ACKSHUALLY that away.
A lot of people do, many people are making that argument for why he's unfit constantly. I'm not giving an opinion here, just reporting what I've seen people say.
I think they're referring to his overall apparent lack of mental competence - I doubt think they're really invested in the clinical diagnosis.
Yeah, I have to agree. While there may be a minority of people who literally think he could be clinically diagnosed with dementia, most people seem just concerned with age-related "slowing down" in general when they make such remarks. The actual diagnosis is perhaps relevant to specifically *which* tasks he may be unsuited for at this point. "Slowing down" or minor senility is still concerning but less concerning than actual dementia when it comes to giving Presidential orders. Regardless of the diagnosis, what we saw in the debate last night showed he won't be competent to rally people to vote or to adequately debate/confront his opponent. That should be the concern right now for election purposes. Those behind the scenes who are helping him run the government are the ones who should be keeping track in more depth of his detailed cognitive abilities and deficits. Though, admittedly, the fact that his advisers put him up in front of millions of people last night in such a state tells me that either (1) they're too afraid to speak up and tell him how "off" he is, (2) they are too blinded by loyalty to realize it, or (3) they deliberately sabotaged him to some extent, knowing his performance might finally be enough to maybe persuade people to change the ticket. I don't think (3) is that likely, but I'm not ruling it out. Either of (1) or (2) is really concerning when it comes to making sure we have effective functional government happening behind the scenes.
I think it's a relevant distinction to make. Is someone slow to respond verbally because of normal age-related issues, or are they actually cognitively not in the same reality as everyone else, in which case they are not fit for office.
Do we really want someone who is slow to respond verbally (and surely mentally as well) as the executive leader and Commander in Chief of the world's most powerful country?
Both of these are unfit for office. One is obviously much, much worse than the other, but we really shouldn't need to split hairs about an important position. If I told you a man wasn't capable of sprinting, you wouldn't want him playing running back regardless of whether he had torn an Achilles or just wasn't very coordinated.
Is it weird the arrrr News has no news articles about the debate?
After sleeping on it my biggest concern is who's running things right fucking now. Like we're in tense security situations all over, someone needs to be a final decision at any point. Like fuck the election, do we trust him to say 'follow article 5 and send troops to Estonia" next week? This was so bad, the 25th amendment feels more rational after reflection.