Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
Trump's slurring is more troubling to me than Biden saying insanely dumb things (he's always done this). They both seem worse than they did 4 or 8 years ago, but that's not surprising given their age. Plus Trump's statement that his doctors thought he'd fail the MoCA is a little... yeah.
The american electorate has already elected one president going through early stages of dementia (Reagan with Alzheimer's in 84), so I don't think they're the best judges.
This whole conversation is part of why Biden's VP choice matters a lot more than normal,though : I think there's a really high chance his VP actually or effictively becomes president during his term.
The only one in the running who I think is actively unqualified from being an executive (politics aside) is Klobuchar. Abusive bosses shouldn't be given MORE power.
On August 04 2020 01:22 LegalLord wrote: Biden absolutely seems less sharp than he was eight years ago. Whether or not the same thing is true for Trump, it does not escape my attention that Biden reminds me a lot of people I know as they started to develop dementia. That isn't a diagnosis, that is an observation that is troubling enough that it shouldn't be ignored.
Doesn't mean that that disqualifies him as a candidate, but it absolutely should factor into the voting decisions you make. If the determination is that Biden is still better than Trump regardless of any potential mental health concerns, fine. It's not at all disingenuous to make note of it, though.
I think it'll also come down to who he picks as veep. As others have stated, if medical evidence does come out and says he's on the decline, then the person who would succeed him needs to be pretty damn good. For the DNC as a whole and for progressives looking to get more standing.
I'm not watching TV as much so I can't say I've seen anything from Biden that would give me pause.
On August 04 2020 00:43 Wegandi wrote: The way Biden loses is him actually existing, that is to say, making his presence well-known with many debates and media appearances. It's why he's basically a ghost right now and why he only agreed to 3 debates. His mental faculty deterioration is extremely evident. If he can somehow manage those few debates he wins, but I think it's going to be hard to do unless the debates are like 45 min long or something. Personally, this election is such a lose/lose that it's an embarrassment.
I'm not really sure what this weird obsession is with remote diagnosing American politicians about their physical or mental state without any actual evidence but I think it's extremely inappropriate.
Biden seemed completely fine in any of the televised debates so far and I don't think there is any indication that he's mentally suffering. People seemed to do the same thing with Clinton.
When you can't win a fight on policy, the only option is to attack the other person.
You have an inflated idea about the "policies" of Biden. It doesn't take much to poke holes through whatever winds have shifted at the time. I guess we'll just forget about segregationist, tough on crime, and foreign interventionist Biden for the moment. By the way, I am sure you never do the things you accuse others of doing, eh, plus you must not know my views very well if you think I need to attack Biden the person to tear down his whatever wind blowing views he has at the time (never mind I was making an observation about the electorate and suspicions for the absence of any significant Biden presence with election not far away).
On August 04 2020 00:43 Wegandi wrote: The way Biden loses is him actually existing, that is to say, making his presence well-known with many debates and media appearances. It's why he's basically a ghost right now and why he only agreed to 3 debates. His mental faculty deterioration is extremely evident. If he can somehow manage those few debates he wins, but I think it's going to be hard to do unless the debates are like 45 min long or something. Personally, this election is such a lose/lose that it's an embarrassment.
I'm not really sure what this weird obsession is with remote diagnosing American politicians about their physical or mental state without any actual evidence but I think it's extremely inappropriate.
Biden seemed completely fine in any of the televised debates so far and I don't think there is any indication that he's mentally suffering. People seemed to do the same thing with Clinton.
When you can't win a fight on policy, the only option is to attack the other person.
You have an inflated idea about the "policies" of Biden. It doesn't take much to poke holes through whatever winds have shifted at the time. I guess we'll just forget about segregationist, tough on crime, and foreign interventionist Biden for the moment. By the way, I am sure you never do the things you accuse others of doing, eh, plus you must not know my views very well if you think I need to attack Biden the person to tear down his whatever wind blowing views he has at the time (never mind I was making an observation about the electorate and suspicions for the absence of any significant Biden presence with election not far away).
It goes both ways, A Republican isn't going to convince a Democrat that Trumps policies are better then Biden and visa versa.
And we have gone over why Biden is staying quiet in this thread a bunch of times, if Biden is in the news Trump can attack him, which is not to the advantage of Biden when Trump is busy losing the election on his own. Normally a challenger has to try and convince the electorate that the incumbent needs to be replaced. Now it looks more like the electorate is shouting for someone else to take over from the incumbent.
There is nothing to be gained by Biden seeking the spotlight at this time. There are no upsides, only downsides. Its also way to early to get people excited to vote. I suspect Biden will come forward more around Sept/Oct and if he doesn't at that time I would start wondering what is going on.
When your opponent is busy committing suicide you don't interrupt him, you let him finish. And that is what Biden is doing atm.
On August 04 2020 01:22 LegalLord wrote: Biden absolutely seems less sharp than he was eight years ago. Whether or not the same thing is true for Trump, it does not escape my attention that Biden reminds me a lot of people I know as they started to develop dementia. That isn't a diagnosis, that is an observation that is troubling enough that it shouldn't be ignored.
Doesn't mean that that disqualifies him as a candidate, but it absolutely should factor into the voting decisions you make. If the determination is that Biden is still better than Trump regardless of any potential mental health concerns, fine. It's not at all disingenuous to make note of it, though.
The biggest worry is that the executive branch seems to cover this stuff up. Both candidates seem to be weaker mentally than 10 years ago if you compare. When Trump got his initial physical that said he wasn't obese by making him slightly taller and weigh less is the bigger concern. If the president, whoever it elected, does end up with dementia it would be real nice if people were honest about it and replaced him instead of pretending that he is healthy.
On August 04 2020 01:48 Nevuk wrote: Trump's slurring is more troubling to me than Biden saying insanely dumb things (he's always done this). They both seem worse than they did 4 or 8 years ago, but that's not surprising given their age. Plus Trump's statement that his doctors thought he'd fail the MoCA is a little... yeah.
The american electorate has already elected one president going through early stages of dementia (Reagan with Alzheimer's in 84), so I don't think they're the best judges.
This whole conversation is part of why Biden's VP choice matters a lot more than normal,though : I think there's a really high chance his VP actually or effictively becomes president during his term.
The only one in the running who I think is actively unqualified from being an executive (politics aside) is Klobuchar. Abusive bosses shouldn't be given MORE power.
Biden was just as bad with words 30 years ago. Doesn't matter at all to me.
On August 04 2020 00:43 Wegandi wrote: The way Biden loses is him actually existing, that is to say, making his presence well-known with many debates and media appearances. It's why he's basically a ghost right now and why he only agreed to 3 debates. His mental faculty deterioration is extremely evident. If he can somehow manage those few debates he wins, but I think it's going to be hard to do unless the debates are like 45 min long or something. Personally, this election is such a lose/lose that it's an embarrassment.
I'm not really sure what this weird obsession is with remote diagnosing American politicians about their physical or mental state without any actual evidence but I think it's extremely inappropriate.
Biden seemed completely fine in any of the televised debates so far and I don't think there is any indication that he's mentally suffering. People seemed to do the same thing with Clinton.
When you can't win a fight on policy, the only option is to attack the other person.
You have an inflated idea about the "policies" of Biden. It doesn't take much to poke holes through whatever winds have shifted at the time. I guess we'll just forget about segregationist, tough on crime, and foreign interventionist Biden for the moment. By the way, I am sure you never do the things you accuse others of doing, eh, plus you must not know my views very well if you think I need to attack Biden the person to tear down his whatever wind blowing views he has at the time (never mind I was making an observation about the electorate and suspicions for the absence of any significant Biden presence with election not far away).
The funny thing is that you criticize Biden for being “tough on crime”. That’s something leftists might criticize Biden for, but the right wing ads currently being played against Biden are that he’s too soft on crime.
You criticize Biden for being a foreign interventionist, but one of the talking points that the right wing media is trying to push is that Biden is weak on China while Trump will stand up to China.
Your taking points come from a very different viewpoint than typical Republicans. As an actual libertarian, you don’t belong with the current Republicans at all. You say Biden is too tough on crime, they say not enough. You say he’s too much of an interventionist, they say not enough.
It seems like you’re actually closer in beliefs with Biden than you are with Trump and the media supporting Trump.
Interventionism is just a kind of foreign policy bias. Non-interventionism is the stronger statement, when it applies. Biden can be interventionist, and drop the ball on Russia and China, for example.
The GOP is right to attack him on it. Someone with as long of a legislative career as Biden is must answer for it. He's part responsible for the high rates of incarceration of minors in prison, because he voted for bill(s) that made it happen. His record within the Obama administration on Russia and China is open to criticism. Biden's made statements cheering China's rise in the world, and expecting it to be a big benefit to America and not a future rival. (All this is not to say Trump doesn't have negatives on the same issue that Biden should point out in debates. Have clear eyes on both men, and don't swallow the propaganda of Biden just because you rate Trump worse.)
On August 04 2020 01:48 Nevuk wrote: Trump's slurring is more troubling to me than Biden saying insanely dumb things (he's always done this). They both seem worse than they did 4 or 8 years ago, but that's not surprising given their age. Plus Trump's statement that his doctors thought he'd fail the MoCA is a little... yeah.
The american electorate has already elected one president going through early stages of dementia (Reagan with Alzheimer's in 84), so I don't think they're the best judges.
This whole conversation is part of why Biden's VP choice matters a lot more than normal,though : I think there's a really high chance his VP actually or effictively becomes president during his term.
The only one in the running who I think is actively unqualified from being an executive (politics aside) is Klobuchar. Abusive bosses shouldn't be given MORE power.
Biden was just as bad with words 30 years ago. Doesn't matter at all to me.
Have you really watched him side by side? It's abundantly clear he's worse, and not just with the "arrested meeting Mandela" type lies he's told this cycle. Whether he could draw the clock or not is unknown (his doctor mentioned he didn't take the test), I can't imagine seeing him even in his 08 debates compared to today and not seeing his decline.
Not caring about that, or not letting it change one's vote is one thing, pretending it isn't what is plainly visible is the kinda absurdity Democrats see when Republicans pretend Trump isn't what he is.
On August 04 2020 01:48 Nevuk wrote: Trump's slurring is more troubling to me than Biden saying insanely dumb things (he's always done this). They both seem worse than they did 4 or 8 years ago, but that's not surprising given their age. Plus Trump's statement that his doctors thought he'd fail the MoCA is a little... yeah.
The american electorate has already elected one president going through early stages of dementia (Reagan with Alzheimer's in 84), so I don't think they're the best judges.
This whole conversation is part of why Biden's VP choice matters a lot more than normal,though : I think there's a really high chance his VP actually or effictively becomes president during his term.
The only one in the running who I think is actively unqualified from being an executive (politics aside) is Klobuchar. Abusive bosses shouldn't be given MORE power.
Biden was just as bad with words 30 years ago. Doesn't matter at all to me.
Have you really watched him side by side? It's abundantly clear he's worse, and not just with the "arrested meeting Mandela" type lies he's told this cycle. Whether he could draw the clock or not is unknown (his doctor mentioned he didn't take the test), I can't imagine seeing him even in his 08 debates compared to today and not seeing his decline.
Not caring about that, or not letting it change one's vote is one thing, pretending it isn't what is plainly visible is the kinda absurdity Democrats see when Republicans pretend Trump isn't what he is.
Biden in 70s and 80s stuttered a little, but he could follow a single thought through several sentences. Biden now just gets lost partway through in almost every interview of any length.
I think something is getting twisted in the minds of a couple people here. It's a fine thing to say anybody would be better than Trump, or anybody would have better policy and team than Trump. The jump is when it serves as justification to declare Biden's totally all there, and this is just some bad enduring stutter. That's just a partisan leap. First off, it's Trumpian ... the translation is he's got all the same great things as decades ago, bigly. Second off, the partisan impulse is to praise "your guy" and hate on "the other guy." It just doesn't feel right in some Biden supporters to give him a licking and still vote for him anyways.
Both candidates suck in kinda unique ways, so it shouldn't be any demerit to judge Biden's mental acuity, you can still vote for him. Vote for him for the Vice President, for the team he's going to appoint, for the return to "normalcy" (eyeroll). But cmon be part political observer, not just partisan zealot all day.
On August 04 2020 00:43 Wegandi wrote: The way Biden loses is him actually existing, that is to say, making his presence well-known with many debates and media appearances. It's why he's basically a ghost right now and why he only agreed to 3 debates. His mental faculty deterioration is extremely evident. If he can somehow manage those few debates he wins, but I think it's going to be hard to do unless the debates are like 45 min long or something. Personally, this election is such a lose/lose that it's an embarrassment.
I'm not really sure what this weird obsession is with remote diagnosing American politicians about their physical or mental state without any actual evidence but I think it's extremely inappropriate.
Biden seemed completely fine in any of the televised debates so far and I don't think there is any indication that he's mentally suffering. People seemed to do the same thing with Clinton.
When you can't win a fight on policy, the only option is to attack the other person.
You have an inflated idea about the "policies" of Biden. It doesn't take much to poke holes through whatever winds have shifted at the time. I guess we'll just forget about segregationist, tough on crime, and foreign interventionist Biden for the moment. By the way, I am sure you never do the things you accuse others of doing, eh, plus you must not know my views very well if you think I need to attack Biden the person to tear down his whatever wind blowing views he has at the time (never mind I was making an observation about the electorate and suspicions for the absence of any significant Biden presence with election not far away).
The funny thing is that you criticize Biden for being “tough on crime”. That’s something leftists might criticize Biden for, but the right wing ads currently being played against Biden are that he’s too soft on crime.
You criticize Biden for being a foreign interventionist, but one of the talking points that the right wing media is trying to push is that Biden is weak on China while Trump will stand up to China.
Your taking points come from a very different viewpoint than typical Republicans. As an actual libertarian, you don’t belong with the current Republicans at all. You say Biden is too tough on crime, they say not enough. You say he’s too much of an interventionist, they say not enough.
It seems like you’re actually closer in beliefs with Biden than you are with Trump and the media supporting Trump.
Why do you assume I'm a Republican? Plus being 5% similar vs. 4% similar is irrelevant. Neither of those men or the parties they represent have anything remotely resembling close to my political beliefs. I don't want to touch either damnable house with a 2 mile long pole. I will say though, that if I had a gun to my head and I had to pick "a side" it would be GOP because of people like Thomas Massie (and formerly GOP Justin Amash) among others as there is no one even remotely close ideologically in the Democrat Party, but again, that's if a gun was to my head and they said choose.
My main point in picking those 3 areas are because of the supposed Democrat base and how wildly Biden differs from them. Because of the system and the hyper partisan reality people willingly throw themselves in people will justify and rationalize anything because "at least it's not the other side". Until that changes there can only be escalation and escalation of the Trumpian world will only lead to dissolution of the US as the fight over centralized power becomes more and more heightened to bludgeon their "enemies".
On August 04 2020 01:48 Nevuk wrote: Trump's slurring is more troubling to me than Biden saying insanely dumb things (he's always done this). They both seem worse than they did 4 or 8 years ago, but that's not surprising given their age. Plus Trump's statement that his doctors thought he'd fail the MoCA is a little... yeah.
The american electorate has already elected one president going through early stages of dementia (Reagan with Alzheimer's in 84), so I don't think they're the best judges.
This whole conversation is part of why Biden's VP choice matters a lot more than normal,though : I think there's a really high chance his VP actually or effictively becomes president during his term.
The only one in the running who I think is actively unqualified from being an executive (politics aside) is Klobuchar. Abusive bosses shouldn't be given MORE power.
Biden was just as bad with words 30 years ago. Doesn't matter at all to me.
Have you really watched him side by side? It's abundantly clear he's worse, and not just with the "arrested meeting Mandela" type lies he's told this cycle. Whether he could draw the clock or not is unknown (his doctor mentioned he didn't take the test), I can't imagine seeing him even in his 08 debates compared to today and not seeing his decline.
Not caring about that, or not letting it change one's vote is one thing, pretending it isn't what is plainly visible is the kinda absurdity Democrats see when Republicans pretend Trump isn't what he is.
The original full length unedited footage of the George Floyd arrest has been leaked on youtube, lasts for 8 and a half minutes if anyone is interested in viewing it :
Maybe watch for yourself, see if wall to wall protests across the country (and western world) were justified.
Who was protesting about George Floyd? If he was some outlying incident rather than an example of an all-too common problem that has been directly experienced by people to varying degrees of severity then you don’t get any kind of mass protest movement.
As an aside I’m unsure as to why there’s almost a cultural convention that it’s improper to question a public political figure’s mental faculties. Kind of how it’s deemed impolite to ask co-workers what their salaries are, it’s really only me that is getting potentially fucked for not knowing if my potential vote is going to a candidate in the early stages of dementia.
Or for that matter speculating over if someone’s a malignant narcissist. I don’t think you have quite the same issues with an incumbent with similar politics who is more ‘normal’
Can someone explain to me the whole Tiktok thing? I am baffled.
I get that the state could potentially ban an app if there is sufficient reason for it. I get that the potential of data being handed to Chinese intelligence could be considered such a reason.
I don't get how the government can force the sale of an app to a domestic competitor. And I absolutely don't get how the government can demand that they get a cut from that coerced transaction. Pardon me saying that, but that just feels incredibly ... un-american.
On August 04 2020 18:37 zatic wrote: Can someone explain to me the whole Tiktok thing? I am baffled.
I get that the state could potentially ban an app if there is sufficient reason for it. I get that the potential of data being handed to Chinese intelligence could be considered such a reason.
I don't get how the government can force the sale of an app to a domestic competitor. And I absolutely don't get how the government can demand that they get a cut from that coerced transaction. Pardon me saying that, but that just feels incredibly ... un-american.
Remember there is a REALLY big gap between what Trump says and what Trump can do.
And when has he cared about something being un-american?
On August 04 2020 18:37 zatic wrote: Can someone explain to me the whole Tiktok thing? I am baffled.
I get that the state could potentially ban an app if there is sufficient reason for it. I get that the potential of data being handed to Chinese intelligence could be considered such a reason.
I don't get how the government can force the sale of an app to a domestic competitor. And I absolutely don't get how the government can demand that they get a cut from that coerced transaction. Pardon me saying that, but that just feels incredibly ... un-american.
Every time the US president does something outrageous over the last few years I've always asked "how is this possible" and then it turns out through some strange legal mumbo-jumbo it somehow is. Honestly the US should just return all powers to congress and remove the office or something after this term is over
In general I think the TikTok ban is extremely short-sighted. It validates China's model of a domestically controlled internet and there's no actual evidence for security threats from the company, it mostly seems to be zoomers doing funny dances. Greatly erodes the US as a country that used to stay neutral when it comes to foreign companies.
TikTok is a security risk as in they have access to mostly they want on your phone, and the cn gov can ask for your data from TikTok and they will give in.
TikTok doesn't store American data on the mainland but instead in the US and Singapore. TikTok itself is already spun off from the Chinese version of the app which is called Douyin. It also doesn't have magically more acess to your phone than any other app, who arguably all collect too much data which if anything justifies legislation rather than singling TikTok out. There have been a lot of weird generalisations about the app simply because it's Chinese.
EPT
