What I want to know is why the Democratic party came to the conclusion that President Biden was cognitively impaired and should step down as the candidate but, leave him still in office.
They came to the conclusion that Biden couldn't win the election, not that we was cognitively impaired.
Ya, they came to the conclusion that he couldn't win the election because he was clearly cognitively impaired.
Who is this "they" that concluded from the debate that Biden is cognitively impaired? Are "they" applying the term "cognitively impaired" in a clinical fashion or as an overall label for someone older? Do "they" think that maybe such determinations should be made based upon neurological testing? Are "they" aware that cognitive decline (forgetfulness, trouble changing tasks, etc.) is a normal part of aging and that it takes considerable progression before it can be labeled "cognitively impaired"? Are "they" comparing Biden's often very comprehensible statements made in the course of his day-to-day activities with those of Trump's often meandering missives as he campaigns?
You're free to believe that Biden is cognitively impaired. That is your right. But many, including those who saw the debate, don't see it the same way.
I think what many saw in the debate was an old man who is finding the demands of office increasingly challenging and who was overburdened once the demands of campaigning were added.
I think many also saw someone who would not be up to the challenges of the presidency for an additional four years but that the next four months wouldn't be much of a problem.
Here is a YouTube video of a Biden press conference from four days ago about Hurricane Helene. I've cued it up to where he responds to several questions. He seems old, not "cognitively impaired":
It’s hardly unusual for GDR to indulge in questionable - or even downright silly (or dishonest) rationalisations. But it does make me wonder about the real reason he wants Biden to go.
Ya, they came to the conclusion that he couldn't win the election because he was clearly cognitively impaired. Did you even watch the debate?
You seem to be having a meltdown/panic attack over your (IMO erroneous) view of the President of a foreign country. I'm astonished that you haven't expressed any anxiety about a convicted felon, insurrectionist, with overwhelming clear PUBLIC SYMPTOMS OF COGNATIVE IMPAIRMENT, AND who is a clear threat to the safety of this whole fucking planet, running for President of the United States!
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3
If you are going to argue that evolution is false because it resembles your own beliefs then perhaps you should rethink your argument. - - Taq
GDR, We have enough problems with our domestic cult of Trumpettes. We don't need a Canadian cultist lying to us as well. You are being stupid beyond bounds. Seems you fell under the spell of some of the American mass media hype and disdain for reality that has so poisoned the debate on this side of the border.
You were supposed to be better than this. So you have always been a religious nutcase but you have also been somewhat reasonable about the glaring truths of undeniable reality this universe presents. Here you have abandoned all pretext of reason. This is very disappointing. You should be ashamed.
“There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion,” -Daniel Dennett
Who is this "they" that concluded from the debate that Biden is cognitively impaired? Are "they" applying the term "cognitively impaired" in a clinical fashion or as an overall label for someone older? Do "they" think that maybe such determinations should be made based upon neurological testing? Are "they" aware that cognitive decline (forgetfulness, trouble changing tasks, etc.) is a normal part of aging and that it takes considerable progression before it can be labeled "cognitively impaired"? Are "they" comparing Biden's often very comprehensible statements made in the course of his day-to-day activities with those of Trump's often meandering missives as he campaigns? You're free to believe that Biden is cognitively impaired. That is your right. But many, including those who saw the debate, don't see it the same way. I think what many saw in the debate was an old man who is finding the demands of office increasingly challenging and who was overburdened once the demands of campaigning were added.
As an aging man myself with some health issues, I think that the argument could be made that an older man with experience can be quite useful as the leader of a competent team of advisors and experts who help him (her) govern the country and make wise decisions. Biden is not as sharp as he once was but he seems to understand issues at least as well as Trump, who is also an old man nearly the same age who is NOT a Team player but more of an autocrat who fires whoever gets in his way. My point is that Trumps mental abilities are sharper for a businessman yet called into question for a free world leader. Biden was good at being a VP for a younger, sharper Obama, while JD Vance seems to know and defend the ideological issues thrown at him by a liberal leaning media.
Harris is also sharp...yet the question that I think GDR is asking is whether her ideology is best for our nation and place in the world going forward. Do we want an autocratic leader for the free world, or do we want an ideological team led by a president who knows how to delegate? I think that the president serves as a spokesman for the chosen ideology of the team (party) at large. Trumps team would likely be governed by top-down autocratic leadership. Biden (and/or Harris)
more likely work as the leader of a team. If she ran the place she would pick her own team at that point. Personally, I think that the original plan was to have Biden win the election and gradually delegate more and more authority to her after the election but that she would have basically been an acting president towards the end of his last term should the Democrats win (have won). A lot of people support Trump within our country but the Democrats have a clear majority within the popular vote. Perhaps if she took over now it would give the country an opportunity to see her leadership style and capability before deciding if she could competently govern.
There is an ideological divide to be sure.
Edited by Phat, .
Edited by Phat, .
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add a couple of blank lines.
GDR, We have enough problems with our domestic cult of Trumpettes. We don't need a Canadian cultist lying to us as well. You are being stupid beyond bounds. Seems you fell under the spell of some of the American mass media hype and disdain for reality that has so poisoned the debate on this side of the border. You were supposed to be better than this. So you have always been a religious nutcase but you have also been somewhat reasonable about the glaring truths of undeniable reality this universe presents. Here you have abandoned all pretext of reason. This is very disappointing. You should be ashamed.
Unfortunately this is what usually passes for debate on this forum and why I don't much bother with it anymore. It is all about labelling and name calling. Yes, I'm a Canadian but my wife is dual and votes in the states. One of my sons is an American and living there with his family. I have two grandsons who are police officers and another one who is a US Marine. I think I have reason to be concerned about what goes on south of the border.
Then as usual because I have a different opinion than you, you label me as a liar and stupid. Then I'm a religious nutcase and have lost all pretext of reason.
This is your idea of reasoned debate and how you respond to a question that I asked without trying to present any form of reasoned argument.
Have a good day.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
If you want debate maybe you should try doing your part. You say that the Democratic establishment believe that Biden isn’t fit to govern but you have yet to adequately support it - or deal with the fact that Biden does seem to be governing well enough.
I should point out that you aren’t treated the way you are because of differing opinions. Your arrogance and lack of concern for the truth have a lot more to do with it.
And of course you’re rationalising as usual. To pick on the least temperate response and label it typical - while failing to address reasonable counterpoints - hardly suggests that you are being honest about your reason for departing.
I should point out that you aren’t treated the way you are because of differing opinions. Your arrogance and lack of concern for the truth have a lot more to do with it.
Same old name calling and labelling. Tell me, where have I been arrogant? I asked a question and then you make assumptions. If Biden stepped down then Harris would be president.
The question I asked has been asked by many. Here is a column on the left leaning network CNN.
Ya, they came to the conclusion that he couldn't win the election because he was clearly cognitively impaired.
No, they were responding to concerns over winning the election because of public perception. Public perception being shaped and fueled by media coverage. Media coverage fed by conservative "news" feeds.
Do you remember when the Ninth Doctor regenerated into the Tenth? That was in The Christmas Invasion. Here is the scene in point, though it happens around the three-minute mark:
The British Prime Minister brought down by six words: "Don't you think she looks tired?" Unfortunately the clip ends before we see those six words work their magic; from that Wikipedia page:
quote:The Doctor orders the Sycorax to leave Earth and never return before taking the humans back to Earth. As the Sycorax ship moves away, Harriet orders Torchwood to destroy the ship. The Doctor becomes furious with Harriet, threatens to bring down her government, and whispers to Harriet's aide: "Don't you think she looks tired?"
The Doctor joins Rose, Jackie, and Mickey for Christmas dinner. They watch Harriet on television fending off rumours about her health, with a vote of confidence looming.
BTW, as I recall that was the first mention we heard of Torchwood (though I'm apparently wrong about that). It's an anagram of "Doctor Who" which was apparently used to label the video tapes to obscure their identity. Unofficial motto: "If it's alien, it's ours"
That's what had happened here with Biden. The right flooded the news with "concerns" over Biden being too old and "cognitively impaired" and the public responded to that große Lüge exactly as der Herr Doktor Goebbels told us they would.
Indeed, despite the MAGAts' best efforts, "too old" was the only thing they could find to use against Biden, whereas finding things to use against Trump suffers from being overwhelmed by a vast embarrassment of riches (as in "where to begin?").
And to demonstrate how contrived the whole business of "Biden is too old" is, just look at the massive coverage of Trump's own cascading cognitive decline. As demonstrated in the video in Percy's Message 19, Biden is quite capable answering questions coherently and actually address the question, whereas Trump cannot answer even a single question. And while Biden is able to stay on point in his speeches, Trump immediately descends into incoherency.
So where is the media outcry against Trump clearly being cognitively impaired? There isn't any. WHY NOT? Instead, media goes to extreme lengths of sanewashing Trump in order to make him appear less insane and incoherent than he's actually being. "Sanewashing" is described as "the practice of minimizing the perceived radical aspects of a person or idea in order to make it more acceptable to a wider audience".
An early example was how during the Vietnam War reports from the field would be reworded before release to the public leading to many Orwellian jokes. Our NCOIC had picked up a humor tape in Nam and played it for us. It depicted an Army captain being interviewed with a Public Affairs Officer (PAO) present. The captain would reply in extremely frank and graphic language (I only remember one, that was in 1979 that I heard it only once, which is too sexually graphic to repeat here) and each time the PAO would calmly sanewash it starting with "What the captain means to say is ... ". Then came the final question, the setup for the punchline:
quote:Interviewer: What do you think of how the war is going? Captain: This war is all f**ked up! PAO: What the captain means to say is ... this war is all f**ked up.
The other morning on radio I heard a video clip of a series of right-wing media clips blasting Biden for his "cognitive decline" intercut with clips of Trump doing the exact same things Biden was accused of only far worse; the clip ended with Biden denouncing those claims about him euphemistically as "banana oil."
Did you even watch the debate?
Did you even listen to it? I was in the car and I could tell immediately that Biden was physically not well. His voice was raspy and he had a cough. On top of that, we later learned, he had just returned from international traveling on diplomatic missions (I forget what crisis was involved, but rest assured that it was no pleasure trip).
Also, he was at the same disadvantage as we normals would be in a "creation/evolution debate" in that while our opponent (eg, MAGAt, creationist) can just lie non-stop about anything and everything (and without any need to think or keep any "facts" straight) we must stick to the facts and keep everything straight.
Just how long do you think you, with your youth and exceptionally sharp mind, would last when subjected to that firehose of lies spewing forth from Trump or any creationist? Of course, Harris' advantage facing Trump was her years of experience as a prosecutor having to deal with felonious thugs like Trump.
Same old name calling and labelling. Tell me, where have I been arrogant? I asked a question...
You began with a "Are you still beating your wife" type of question and then continued in a pattern consistent with that. Here's your question from Message 1:
What I want to know is why the Democratic party came to the conclusion that President Biden was cognitively impaired and should step down as the candidate but, leave him still in office.
When did the Democratic party conclude Biden was cognitively impaired? You never say, and you cannot say, because it's not true.
And as PaulK said, you chose the most intemperate message to respond to and then characterized it as typical of all the responses when that is definitely not true. And you didn't respond to 11 of the 17 responses to you, most of them very reasonable and temperate, but you ignored them anyway. If you want a temperate discussion then you might try responding to those.
Your initial assertion was challenged, you were unable to back it up but stuck to your guns anyway, then you got raked across the coals for that approach by one or two responses. That can happen when you can't support what you assert but keep asserting it anyway.
And the opinion piece you cited doesn't support your position. It argues that Biden should submit to cognitive testing, not that the Democratic party concluded that Biden is cognitively impaired, or that Biden should be removed from office. If argues that Biden's debate performance raises questions, not that it provides answers.
™ Version 4.2
