https://nypost.com/2024/06/29/us-news/president-biden-has-difficulty-functioning-outside-of-6-hour-window-report/
The reports that Biden doesn't function well mentally outside of a 10AM-4PM window seems concerning.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/video/carl-bernstein-biden-performance-presidential-debate-ac360-digvid
One of the most revered journalists of the last 55 years, Carl Bernstein, on one of the most revered sources of real journalism raises serious doubts about the decline of Biden's cognitive abilities.
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-cognitive-decline-six-month-debate-donald-trump-carl-bernstein-1919946
Newsweek, another revered source of real journalism, reports the Bernstein story as well.
I'm not sure what to make of the die hard, ride or die, Biden supporters who are trying to pretend like Biden is sharp as a tack and ready to rumble.
16 comments:
I am not one of those die hard supporters of Biden. No one in the moderate to progressive community that I know is that kind of supporter. We're all concerned that Biden is aging out. We're not there on the ground with him, so we can't say for sure, but he gives the appearance of someone struggling with their age.
I wish we were running someone else. I wish someone had ran against him in the primary. But we weren't given that option.
The key distinction is, with Biden, we have a basically good person, fundamentally fit for office given his goals and values... someone who surrounds himself with basically good, fit for office people. IF and when Biden is not able to complete his service, then we are confident that the people around him can carry on.
Biden and his team may be way more moderate than many of us wish, and his admirable, longtime demonstrated goal of trying to bring a divided nation together and reach across the aisle may be fighting a losing battle... and he may be promoting policies I don't agree with at times, but I was never worried about his and his team's basic fitness for office or basic decency.
On the other hand, you have the GOP candidate who is, in literally dozens of documented, demonstrable ways, unfit for office. He is a man who has demonstrated himself to be unintelligent and fundamentally dishonest and corrupt. The dozens of indictments and allegations against him are not the whim of a Democratic party seeking to attack a good and decent man. He is fundamentally corrupt. He has demonstrated to be amoral and anarchistic, to promote racist and sexist ideologies. He has demonstrated leanings towards and support of strongman dictators. He is, in dozens of ways, entirely unfit for office and reasonable people across the political spectrum know this. Conservative historians and political experts, conservative representatives and people have all noted this reality, it's not a vast left wing conspiracy. He is inept, corrupt, dishonest to a fault, indecent, amoral and gladly willing to abuse the system for his own needs. He has a fundamental lack of respect for a free republic.
Given that, the GOP has put Democrats in a hard place. We're faced with a basically good and fit president who may be slowly losing his ability to lead well due to aging. As most of us know by now - the many of us who have dealt with age-related dementia in our loved ones and seen them slowly lose capacity to maintain - we know that there is no ONE line that says, "Okay, this is a dementia problem and it's gone too far..." It's a hard call to make. And I certainly don't know at all that this is the case with Biden. At his worse, he's still more fit for the office than the fundamentally corrupted and unfit Trump. If for no other reason than Biden will surround himself with good, fit people and Trump has demonstrated that he surrounds himself with loyalists who will jump when he says jump.
We'll see what will happen. I would love to see some policies put in place by wise people that seeks to deal with what to do with seriously flawed candidates, but I'm not sure what that would or could be that still respects human rights. I think it could be argued for many reasonable, non-ageist reasons, that an upper age limit should be in place, just as we have a lower age limit in place.
"The key distinction is, with Biden, we have a basically good person, fundamentally fit for office"
You keep repeating this as if a decades long, including the debate, history of lying and plagiarism isn't well established. As if his his financial status isn't suspect. As if he wasn't the one responsible for so much bad policy in his decades in the senate. As if y'all in the DFL didn't literally have so much confidence in him that there was only ONE opponent in the primary. Y'all had the opportunity to choose, and you chose Biden.
This notion that it's all Trump's fault. That somehow the GOP forced the DFL to nominate an incredibly shitty candidate is ridiculous.
I've said this multiple times, but Trump in 2016 was a bad candidate, for all the reason's everybody knows. But y'all chose to run Hillary who was the one candidate less appealing than Trump. Y'all could have run a moderate candidate without a history of corruption, and probably won in a landslide. But you didn't. Likewise, in 2020 for the GOP (although it's harder to dump an incumbent who'd had huge policy success economically and who'd brought us out of the COVID recession) they could have run someone else and likely won against Biden. Now in 2024, y'all were all in on how Biden was the very best candidate to beat Trump and how he was great and all the questions about his mental state and age were ridiculous. Well you got what you wanted.
The notion that Biden (who's sharp from 10AM-4PM) and out of it the rest of the day, is more fit for office than anyone is laughable. Y'all made your choice, you had every opportunity to run opposition in the primary, and y'all didn't. Hell, you probably couldn't tell me who Biden's one "serious" primary challenger was without Google. Y'all ran Bernie and RFK Jr out of running (how petty is Biden to deny RFK secret service protection?), and y'all got exactly what you wanted.
It's no one's fault but the DFL and the DFL voters that y'all have Biden as your candidate.
330,000,000+ people in the US, 200,000,000 +or- meet the basic eligibility standards for POTUS, and these two are what we have to choose from.
FYI, there are policies put in place to deal with flawed candidates, they're called primary elections. It's crazy that when you allow people the freedom to vote for whoever they want, they sometimes don't make the "wise" choice. Maybe we should turn it over to AI and let the computers choose.
This is another example of us being in some degree of agreement, and you trying to foment disagreement.
"Now in 2024, y'all were all in on how Biden was the very best candidate to beat Trump and how he was great and all the questions about his mental state and age were ridiculous."
Not "y'all." Not me and mine. Clearly, large numbers of progressives are not all in on Biden. That's part of the problem, isn't it?
Dan
"Not "y'all." Not me and mine. Clearly, large numbers of progressives are not all in on Biden. That's part of the problem, isn't it?"
1. Not everything revolves around you.
2. Perhaps you were unaware of the primary process where significant numbers of y'all campaigned, caucused, and voted for Biden.
3. Clearly this was not the case during the primaries.
4. This abrupt turning against Biden is actually kind of amusing.
5. This turning against Biden is reminiscent of the DFL pulling together to change the rules and make sure Bernie didn't get the nomination.
6. When I refer to you specifically, I generally make it clear.
7. I will almost never refer to your "mine". If for some reason I do refer to your small, insular, group I'll be specific as to why I am doing so.
8. It's not all about you.
You keep repeating this as if a decades long, including the debate, history of lying and plagiarism isn't well established. As if his his financial status isn't suspect.
This degree or level of bad behavior/imperfection is a common theme for nearly all political candidates (maybe Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama being the exceptions). I'm not looking for a perfect candidate because that's going to take too long.
There is a chasm as mighty as wide as Brother Lazarus from the rich fool in hell when it comes to this petty level of misdeed in comparison to the great malfeasance and endless corruption, dishonesty and malfeasance of the pervert king the GOP has nominated. This is not a partisan opinion. Scholars, historians and decent conservatives have all noted this same sentiment.
Biden is basically a good, decent fella trying to do the right thing.
When we fail to note serious distinctions, we fail to take an adult, measured look at reality.
As to the "it's not all about you..." when you were speaking to ME and said, TO ME, "Now in 2024, y'all were all in on how Biden was the very best candidate to beat Trump" you were speaking to me and referencing "y'all," (as in YOU and those others like you). Your words were imprecise and factually incorrect. Just admit it and move on.
there are policies put in place to deal with flawed candidates, they're called primary elections. It's crazy that when you allow people the freedom to vote for whoever they want, they sometimes don't make the "wise" choice.
What I'm noting is something that you can perhaps at least partially see the wisdom in. Our system is flawed. Of ALL the potential candidates the GOP could have put forth, the system as it exists allowed the GOP to put for a man who is on the face of it unfit for office, as many in the GOP noted at the time (and some still do - but then, they've been effectively kicked out of the GOP for failing to kiss the orange butt). The system allows unhinged attacks and utterly false claims in the course of demonizing good, reasonable people. The system paid off for the inept and idiotic Trump, because his one level of genius is in conning people and playing the system for his benefit. It's where he's excelled his whole life.
But that's not a good thing. That a system can ultimately reward an inept, idiotic conman indicates that the system is broke.
I think there are things we can do to improve the system, to hopefully fix it to some degree. Not allowing unlimited idiotically false attacks to continue, limiting how much one can spend on an election - especially in the effort to spread clear falsehoods, having some degree of factual requirements and adult conversation in debates... for starters. We can improve our civic and media education so that people aren't so gullible for conspiracy theories and stupidly false claims for another example. Having requirements on political commercials of factual claims... maybe limiting political commercials to "Here are my positions and why I hold them." Period.
AND having age limits at the top as we do on the bottom. AND having some degree of mental fitness evaluation... although that is certainly a tricky one. Maybe there's no way of doing that without doing damage to those with mental illness.
These are actions that we can take to improve the system as it is so that we don't end up with the two not great candidates we have today. One who is not great and one who is utterly unfit, and for dozens of reasons.
This abrupt turning against Biden is actually kind of amusing.
I am not turning against Biden. In many ways, he's done an excellent job, given the mess he inherited from the former president. I've noted all along that I have concern for those approaching 80 being in the running for president (or any office).
1. Because we are a nation with a wealth of people and it's good to let younger people have a chance.
2. Because of the power of incumbency, it skews elections towards people who are already in office and, I think, unfairly so.
3. Because of the reality of dementia as we get older. From NIH: Five percent of people ages 71 to 79, 24.2 percent of people 80 to 89
That is, 1 in FOUR of our potential political candidates COULD have dementia once they reach 80. Because of the gradual and debilitating nature of dementia, we may not always notice. The problems come and go.
Now, I'm not suggesting we penalize people over 80... it's just that we have justifiable reason to be concerned starting about that age AND we have other, younger options.
None of which is "turning against" anyone. My mother began experiencing dementia in her late 70s/early 80s and was "forced out" of a small neighborhood-level political job because she could no longer do it. I agreed with the decision for my Mom's sake. It was more than she could do. We should honor our seniors and let them have their well-earned rest doing more suitable good work or whatever it is they want to do... just not run for office. It is egotism in the worst way to suggest that only they have the wisdom to save us and it does no one any favors.
I suspect at some level you could agree with some of this.
"This degree or level of bad behavior/imperfection is a common theme for nearly all political candidates"
I understand that perfection is not going to happen. I also agree with what Truman said about politicians who get rich in office. What's strange is that you find Trump's lies unacceptable, yet clearly find Biden's long history of lies and plagiarism to be "common" and acceptable enough to vote for him. Seems inconsistent to me, but you do you.
"There is a chasm as mighty as wide as Brother Lazarus from the rich fool in hell when it comes to this petty level of misdeed in comparison to the great malfeasance and endless corruption, dishonesty and malfeasance of the pervert king the GOP has nominated."
Again, I find this interesting. Remember when y'all were making excuses for Clinton's shenanigans and y'all introduced the idea that what Clinton did as a private citizen was not fair game, while his behavior in office was. So now, we have Trump who's shenanigans are almost entirely from his life as a private citizen, yet he's held to a different standard than Clinton, while Biden's lies, corruption, and shenanigans are almost entirely a part of his life as a elected official. Seems to me that under the Clinton Doctrine Biden's pubic corruption would be worse than Clinton's private corruption. FYI, the special counsel acknowledged that Biden should be prosecuted for the same sort of classified documents crap as Trump but that he wasn't competent to stand trial. FYII, Biden's classified documents issues were worse, because they happened when he was not in a position to legally declassify documents. But, I get it. Public corruption, millions hidden in bank accounts and LLC's with no sources, cocaine in the White House, it's just not a big deal.
"(as in YOU and those others like you)."
It's always refreshing when you condescend to tell me what I was thinking or what I meant when I wrote something. You're almost always wrong, but it's refreshing when you just decide that you're hunch about what I said is right. By, y'all I was referring to those who vote DFL. While you are a DFL partisan, and slavishly vote DFL, I wasn't really talking about you as an individual.
"Our system is flawed."
I think Churchill said something about this, if only I could remember what it was.
"Of ALL the potential candidates the GOP could have put forth, the system as it exists allowed the GOP to put for a man who is on the face of it unfit for office, as many in the GOP noted at the time (and some still do - but then, they've been effectively kicked out of the GOP for failing to kiss the orange butt)."
In the "land of the free" we don't restrict people's voting choices, we don't let some elitists decide who is acceptable for people to choose from. It's called freedom. Strangely enough, you don't mention that the DFL candidate is also spectacularly unqualified to be president. The constitutional qualifications for POTUS are minimal, and Trump meets them. Of course, the Orange Man thing lost some of it's power when Biden decided to do the orange thing too. Also, the political parties are not parts of the government. There is no mandate that the parties must accept any and everyone without restriction.
"The system allows unhinged attacks and utterly false claims in the course of demonizing good, reasonable people. The system paid off for the inept and idiotic Trump, because his one level of genius is in conning people and playing the system for his benefit. It's where he's excelled his whole life."
Again, my memory fails, but I think that the presidential election of 1802 (?) brought about a level of vitriol that makes 2020-2024 look like a Sunday School picnic. This has been a factor in elections since the beginning. Since the advent of TV in the '60s the pendulum has swung towards favoring the slick "con man" type. Clinton, was the same type. P-BO was almost all style and no substance. Regan was a master at communicating to people. Und so weiter. This is not a big deal, other than it speaks to the ignorance of a portion of the electorate and to the recognition that voting for the "lesser evil" is sometimes necessary.
"But that's not a good thing. That a system can ultimately reward an inept, idiotic conman indicates that the system is broke."
No it doesn't. What's your alternative? Some anonymous, secret, board of elites who pick and choose who gets to run for election? Why restrict people's freedom because of your Trump hatred?
"I think there are things we can do to improve the system, to hopefully fix it to some degree. Not allowing unlimited idiotically false attacks to continue,"
Read, restricting candidates freedom of speech. Just false attacks, or do you want to remove any candidate who's ever lied? I've watched for the last couple of days as those on the left have launched all sorts of idiotically false attacks, so what.
"limiting how much one can spend on an election"
So, does that mean that you have a problem with Biden receiving a $64,000,000 "dark money" donation from a single donor laundered through PACS right before the 2020 election? Who decides how much is too much?
"- especially in the effort to spread clear falsehoods, having some degree of factual requirements and adult conversation in debates... for starters."
Does that mean that you should be sanctioned for repeating the idiotically false claims that the Clinton campaign manufactured against Trump? Are you suggesting that Hillary should have been removed from the 2016 race for her manufactured falsehoods?
"We can improve our civic and media education so that people aren't so gullible for conspiracy theories and stupidly false claims for another example. Having requirements on political commercials of factual claims... maybe limiting political commercials to "Here are my positions and why I hold them." Period."
Again with limiting free speech. Well done. I'm sure that the American education system where thousands of kids can't read at grade level, and do math a grade level has nothing to do with this nation wide ignorance you theorize. Again, I thought people were free to believe what they wanted without some minions forcing them to believe otherwise.
Again with the bad memory, but I think some chap named Orville or Orwell said something about this sort of thinking.
"AND having age limits at the top as we do on the bottom. AND having some degree of mental fitness evaluation... although that is certainly a tricky one. Maybe there's no way of doing that without doing damage to those with mental illness."
I'm torn on age limits and term limits. On the one hand they are appealing as a way to restrict the Pelosi's of the world from monetizing their positions (insider trading anyone?) and rid us of the McConnels and Bidens that we're plagued with. On the other hand, people should be free to vote for whoever they want, even if they are as power hungry and corrupt as Pelosi or Biden.
"These are actions that we can take to improve the system as it is so that we don't end up with the two not great candidates we have today. One who is not great and one who is utterly unfit, and for dozens of reasons."
Unfortunately, your lack of specifics and the pesky constitution would probably be barriers.
What's your alternative? Some anonymous, secret, board of elites who pick and choose who gets to run for election? Why restrict people's freedom because of your Trump hatred?
1. I don't have an irrational "hatred for Trump." That would be an example of a stupidly false claim. I AGREE with the many reasonable people across the political spectrum - political experts and scholars, historians, regular GOP folks like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney, etc... that Trump is spectacularly, historically unfit for office for a wide number of reasons. To try to dismiss this reasonable concern about his perversion, corruption, dishonesty and vulgar conman level awfulness as "Trump hatred" is, itself, part of the problem.
How often do you have historians across the political spectrum saying, "Woah! This is NOT good... this man is the worst president ever!"? How often do so many conservatives, moderates and progressives agree that this one person is spectacularly unfit for office?
2. I offered my reasonable alternatives - age limits, rulings about political advertisement with the minimal requirement that they be truthful, reasonable requirements about debate behaviors. Your pervert king that you've repeatedly voted for and defended was able to decimate more reasonable opponents by taking advantage of the ability to lie and twist and deceive. How can reasonable people NOT be supportive of some minimal requirements about honesty?
This is mind boggling.
3. Of course, I've never suggested some secret board of deciders. That would be an example of a stupidly dishonest claim on your part (much like the other spectacularly dishonest claims that the MAGA movement has endorsed and repeated). I don't believe you to be vulgar or dishonest. Why push this ridiculous claim that I have not said, ESPECIALLY when I gave some specific examples of reasonable steps that might be taken to avoid your party being played by a vulgar conman in the future?
On the one hand they are appealing as a way to restrict the Pelosi's of the world from monetizing their positions (insider trading anyone?) and rid us of the McConnels and Bidens that we're plagued with.
Look, we're in agreement. Congresspeople should absolutely NOT be able to use their positions to take advantage of insider trading type deals. Whether it's the many in the GOP doing so or those Democrats who appear to be doing so (why you choose to only mention a Democrat is puzzling... I'm glad to admit it appears to be a problem across the board. Especially when it's slightly more common in the GOP side of things, it appears...
https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9#rep-michael-guest-a-republican-from-mississippi-34
The fact that you mention Biden - who has not been shown to have done ANY of this - and fail to mention Trump - who's made a lifetime experience of this - is telling.
Why defend perverts and the corrupt when they're in your own party, especially when their corruption is so in your face and evident?
"I am not turning against Biden."
I know you can't help your narcissim, but try to understand that I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the MSM doing a 180 from their previous position that Biden was fine. I'm talking about the DFL governors meeting to discuss what to do. I'm talking about James Carville, and many/most of the DFL activists.
"In many ways, he's done an excellent job, given the mess he inherited from the former president. I've noted all along that I have concern for those approaching 80 being in the running for president (or any office)."
Well, the fact that he's lied about the "mess he inherited" (fact: the COVID recession ended before Biden took office), he's lied about the inflation rates, and various other metrics. He simple continued the (bad) Trump policies on COVID and threw billions (newly printed) of dollars into the economy driving inflation higher. He's redefined various measures of inflation to hide the actual increases in costs. The employment numbers show that the vast majority of the jobs Biden "created" were people going back to work after the government forced them to be laid off or are part time jobs instead of full time. After 3 years of virtually no efforts to control immigration all of a sudden Biden decides to do some token EO for the publicity. Hell, the Fed isn't even going to drop rates in the election year. There is a lot of effort going into making Biden look better than he is.
1. I don't disagree. It's the positive side of term limits.
2. Again, I agree. It's created a class of incumbents who've managed to milk the system into vast riches. Hell, AOC has managed to accumulate millions in just a couple of years in office.
3.Yes, cognitive decline with age is a real thing regardless of the specific cause. I agree that there should be some way to test for cognitive ability.
"That is, 1 in FOUR of our potential political candidates COULD have dementia once they reach 80. Because of the gradual and debilitating nature of dementia, we may not always notice. The problems come and go."
A redundant point, but sure.
"None of which is "turning against" anyone."
It's possible that I wasn't clear about "turning away" from Biden. It seems equally likely that you decided that I meant something else. I am referring to the massive move of the MSM, the DFL political/donor class, the DFL governors, and the like all pushing the narrative that Biden has to go.
"I suspect at some level you could agree with some of this."
If you only "suspect" then it's because you don't pay attention.
1. Ok, you believe your hatred for Trump is rational because people who agree with your hatred of Trump exist. Whatever.
2. I addressed your "alternatives". Maybe you missed that in your haste to disparage me for no reason. You seem confused by the fact that I voted against Clinton and Biden, not necessarily for Trump. You ignore the fact that my votes were cast hesitantly and out of necessity. Further, my votes in the state I live in were meaningless to the outcome of the election.
3. You're right, and wrong. You suggested some vague and mysterious way to magically exclude candidates that don't meet your subjective moral standards from running for election in our free country. I was trying to get you to explain what you meant specifically. It's clear that you'd rather not provide any specifics about your vague and mysterious plan to thwart the will of the people expressed through their votes.
"why you choose to only mention a Democrat is puzzling" Because the brazenness of the Pelosi family and their insider trading and trading on her position is so grotesque that it's an obvious example. But hey, you always only mention those in the GOP when you need an example, I guess turnabout is not fair play in Dan world.
The reason I mention Biden in this context is because he's managed to accrue a massive fortune hidden in anonymous LLC's and bank accounts while being continuously in the government for the past 40sih years. I thought you held politicians to higher standards than non politicians. It's apples and oranges.
"Why defend perverts and the corrupt when they're in your own party, especially when their corruption is so in your face and evident?"
As IO have never defended perversion or corruption of anyone in public office, you questions has no basis in reality. If you want to provide quotes and links where I defend perversion and corruption, I'll reconsider.
I couldn't get through this one. There was too much from both sides with which I take issue.
In 2016, Trump was as good a candidate as any by virtue of the fact he was eligible under US law. He came rife with concerns given his known character flaws which didn't overcome the demand for a non-politician business man to be given the chance...nor were they considered so problematic that one should take the chance on a Hillary presidency. Thus, he was a good candidate in the general election, if not the primaries. This is an important distinction.
From that point on, he proved himself more than merely fit and competent for the job, but as one who needed to be shown to be less than a competing candidate without such a track record. In my mind, only Ron DeSantis had truly demonstrated that by his work in an executive position and others on the primary ballot who might have did not get the opportunity to truly prove it (like Bergum, for example).
Trump was not beaten in 2020. He was robbed and the evidence is overwhelming on many different levels that assholes pretend don't exist, and decent people don't want to talk about at this point. But we can't know just how intent the Dems were willing to cheat if Trump wasn't running again. I'm gonna say they were intent on making sure the GOP candidate, whomever it might have been, wouldn't win and by hook or crook...mostly crook because it's all they really have...the cheating would have been just as intense and widespread.
Dan's comments are mostly fantasies provoked by his Trump hatred, from which he pretends not to suffer so as not to further crap on his false claim of being a Christian. His constant attacks on Trump, insisting he's the worst thing since Dan's Father of Lies himself, does not compel one to believe abject, psychotic hatred isn't at play. Dan still likely no doubt believes Trump grabs women by the crotch (because the thought of such gives Dan a tingle in his lady bits). Dan promotes the myth of Trump's treacheries, but never produces any evidence for the claims, as he would insist of us were the claims made of Biden, Obama or Karl Marx without supportive evidence. Trump's been accused of much, but convicted of nothing before the recent kangaroo Stalinist courts in the past couple years. He's been sued and he's sued and as one of business on the level he's been, it's unlikely that such is not routine. But while Dan cites stories, we never hear the other side beyond Trump's rejection of the claims, and settlements do not imply guilt as much as they do getting the monkey off one's back.
Dan claims he never voted for Clinton because of his character issues. But to my knowledge, they were not widely know until the Gennifer Flowers situation which popped after Clinton's second term began. Given it's been far easier to find info on candidate now than back then, I wonder how Dan was so fortunate to be aware of Clinton's dalliances prior to his first election. I think Dan's lying again. He voted for Obama, and Obama's lack of track record was far more easily found as were his lies. Yet he dares suggest Obama's character is better than Trump's. First of all, he's a Democrat marxist, so there's that.
As to Biden, who came up on the coattails of known and proud racists, who never did anything of any known merit which had any significant benefit to a significant amount of people, lying and plagiarizing along the way, supporting blatantly unChristian positions while claiming to be a devout Catholic (as if the RCC doesn't have enough problems with him and Pelosi tying themselves to the Church).
What matters is results. Trump got many really good results. Biden never got any throughout his entire political career and lying Dan has the gall to suggest he's more fit and a better man. Sad and sick.
Post a Comment