Biden's mental decline

[bigbird 60,580]

Oh look, more name calling.

Makes claim, can't back it, calls names. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Just now, bigbird said:

Oh look, more name calling.

Makes claim, can't back it, calls names. Wash, rinse, repeat.

My claim is backed. I said you’re promoting Trump’s messaging to the letter. Provided the link to messaging that demonstrated my point and you ignore why I provide. Rinse lather repeat. You’re utterly predictable. 

[bigbird 60,580]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

My claim is backed. I said you’re promoting Trump’s messaging to the letter. Provided the link to messaging that demonstrated my point and you ignore why I provide. Rinse lather repeat. You’re utterly predictable. 

Comprehension thing again, huh?

No, you claimed me a Trump supporter. I asked for you to quote a single post of mine supporting Trump and you can't. So you fall back to your SOP.  You call names and try to twist words to make it seem like you're complying to the request. 

 

 

[bigbird 60,580]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

😂😂😂 Another “I’m not supporting Trump” post from Bird!

I bet you’re still deeply concerned about Hillary’s mental health, too.

 

45 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Been a few weeks but it was due. How you were able to infer Trump support from that post is beyond laughable. However, since that's one of your go-tos, besides calling memebers "liars", please, again, point out my Trump support. Just quote a single post. Just one. 

 

As far as Clinton, why would I? Has she decided to run?

Just helping you out since you're, umm... misremembering.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

56 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Trump starts a messaging campaign, you volunteer. Like clockwork. Gonna start calling you Eric.

Here’s what I accused you of. You carry his water while stating you’re not a supporter. You have a comprehension problem. Evidence of mental decline.

[bigbird 60,580]

I guess we're just gonna ignore the initial exchange. Sounds about right. I would try to also if I couldn't back it up.  Just keep redirecting, I'm sure no one notices.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

I guess we're just gonna ignore the initial exchange. Sounds about right. I would try to also if I couldn't back it up.  Just keep redirecting, I'm sure no one notices.

Not ignoring. Combine the two. You never claim to support— you just do his dirty work. That’s my claim.

[bigbird 60,580]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Not ignoring. Combine the two. You never claim to support— you just do his dirty work. That’s my claim.

I guess the intercept was too far right leaning for you and did you see all those Fox news clips embedded in the article? Such bias on my part, huh? 

 

[TexasTiger 13,028]

6 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I guess the intercept was too far right leaning for you and did you see all those Fox news clips embedded in the article? Such bias on my part, huh? 

 

The Intercept? Crazy is crazy, “left” or “right.”

Jill Stein’s on board, too. They’re getting the band back together.

[AUDub 11,184]

6 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I guess the intercept was too far right leaning for you and did you see all those Fox news clips embedded in the article? Such bias on my part, huh? 

 

If there's any brand of hate that could effectively curdle all of the milk on the planet, it's Greenwald's utter contempt for the Democratic party. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I guess the intercept was too far right leaning for you and did you see all those Fox news clips embedded in the article? Such bias on my part, huh? 

I've recently noticed this, also. This thread, the thread about the Dem who went to the Trump rally, the jobs report. Seems every thread you start in the political forum is subtly pro Trump or anti-Dem. Which is wouldn't be as significant if it didn't seem to be ramping up during an election.

[johnnyAU 3,651]

It is a real concern. He is showing clear signs of decline. The democrats are afraid of Bernie and threw in the support for Biden. 

Gabbard never had a shot, but what was so wrong with Buttigieg or Klobuchar?  

[TexasTiger 13,028]

4 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

It is a real concern. He is showing clear signs of decline. The democrats are afraid of Bernie and threw in the support for Biden. 

Gabbard never had a shot, but what was so wrong with Buttigieg or Klobuchar?  

I’m sure you would have told us had they gotten the nod.

[AUDub 11,184]

9 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

It is a real concern. He is showing clear signs of decline. The democrats are afraid of Bernie and threw in the support for Biden. 

Gabbard never had a shot, but what was so wrong with Buttigieg or Klobuchar?  

The African-American vote, and black folks love them some Joe. Warren and Buttigieg never really connected with them. 

Edit: Neither did Klobuchar, for that matter. 

[bigbird 60,580]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

I've recently noticed this, also. This thread, the thread about the Dem who went to the Trump rally, the jobs report. Seems every thread you start in the political forum is subtly pro Trump or anti-Dem. Which is wouldn't be as significant if it didn't seem to be ramping up during an election.

They aren't necessarily either. That's the point. Its about being able to discuss both sid es equally. Which seemingly can't happen. There are a few that can objectively see both sides and discuss it. There are more that can't. 

This one wasn't supposed to be pro or anti anyone. There was an article with links from left leaning media discussing Biden an a issue that will be brought up during the he campaign. Why is that anti Dem? It's not. It's let's discuss things about the candidates. We've spent 4 years discussing Trump's issues. Why not have an open discussion about the one that's gonna run against him? Me not wanting this thread to devolve into another Whatabouttrump and focus it on Biden doesn't mean I support Trump. It means I would like to discuss the other for a change. That's how discussions work.

Your reply/response yesterday was great, it furthered the discussion. It didn't end it with dead-end blanket statements, name calling, or purposeful misinterpretations. 

The ability to identify both strengths and weaknesses of each candidate and discuss them logically and rationally should be a priority. Unfortunately, for some, the priority is to distract from that.

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 minutes ago, bigbird said:

They aren't necessarily either. That's the point. Its about being able to discuss both sid es equally. Which seemingly can't happen. There are a few that can objectively see both sides and discuss it. There are more that can't. 

This one wasn't supposed to be pro or anti anyone. There was an article with links from left leaning media discussing Biden an a issue that will be brought up during the he campaign. Why is that anti Dem? It's not. It's let's discuss things about the candidates. We've spent 4 years discussing Trump's issues. Why not have an open discussion about the one that's gonna run against him? Me not wanting this thread to devolve into another Whatabouttrump and focus it on Biden doesn't mean I support Trump. It means I would like to discuss the other for a change. That's how discussions work.

Your reply/response yesterday was great, it furthered the discussion. It didn't end it with dead-end blanket statements, name calling, or purposeful misinterpretations. 

The ability to identify both strengths and weaknesses of each candidate and discuss them logically and rationally should be a priority. Unfortunately, for some, the priority is to distract from that.

Yes, we've spent 4 years talking about the sitting POTUS. This follows 8 years of talking about the sitting president. Which followed 8, 8, 4, 8, 4...... Now we're talking about either keeping him or replacing him. Joe Biden means nothing outside of that context. 

The answer you seek involves Trump. There's no way around it. It's not Whatabouttrump. Trump is the context. 

 

As for your desire to "discuss", I've asked you twice for your own thoughts on the matter and you've ignored me. 

[bigbird 60,580]

3 hours ago, AUDub said:

If there's any brand of hate that could effectively curdle all of the milk on the planet, it's Greenwald's utter contempt for the Democratic party. 

 I was unaware of that when I initially posted. After your first comment on him, I looked him up and understand. Thanks.

I didn't bring the article due to his contempt but rather with the understanding that it's an issue that will be talked about and thought there was some merit.

[homersapien 11,453]

14 hours ago, countoff said:

Clearly the media, social media, and vicious political personalities has made the office of the President of the United States a completely miserable position not only for the person in the office, but also for their friends and family.  It's ironic that the attributes (smart, good leader, charismatic, etc.) which would make for a truly qualified president are also the same attributes that make this person realize that they  wouldn't be caught dead in the job.  We have created an atmosphere where only "nut jobs" want to run for president.

But Trump is the nut job that pushes strong economic policies, tries to protect our border, doesn't let the media push him around,  resists ridiculous politically correct lip service, and doesn't promote giveaway programs that don't make any mathematical sense.   

   

Man that's delusional.

Trump is not smart, a good leader or charismatic.   He's ignorant, a divider and a demagogue.  Obama was the last POTUS who was  smart, a good leader and charismatic.  Trump plays on xenophobia and racism.  As for leadership, that's ridiculous - no one believes a word he says.  (see covid 19 crisis)  A leader is capable and willing to present bad news and outline a plan for dealing with it.

Trump doesn't push "strong economic policies".  He provides tax breaks to the 1%, increasing deficits everyone will have to deal with.  Trump is merely lucky to have inherited a good economy that was created by Obama.

And seriously, "resists politically correct lip service"?  WTF is that supposed to mean?  He doesn't resist anyone who sucks up to him, in fact, he demands it.

He is a self-serving con man that doesn't give a s*** about the country.  It's all about him.  He will be remembered for being the most unqualified and corrupt president in modern history.

I just don't understand how people are so willing or gullible to accept Trump's gaslighting.

[bigbird 60,580]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

As for your desire to "discuss", I've asked you twice for your own thoughts on the matter and you've ignored me. 

Wasn't my intention. In fact I had typed up a response but must've moved pages thinking I had already replied.

 

Basically, it said that I think Joe has always been pretty sharp with his ability to verbally spar with others with the occasional "gaffe". That's not a big deal to me nor would it have been a reason to disqualify him from my vote. That said, he seems to have been making more obvious verbal "mistakes" lately compared to the normal gaffes he we are accustomed to from him. Does this mean he is more stressed and that's causing it, or more cameras and media attention so we're seeing it more often, or is it a symptom of some neurological issue? I'm not sure. Does anyone else know? I do know that others like Corey Booker or Castro have spoken about it as well as some more left leaning media groups. Its not just "Trump supporters" trying to tarnish Biden. That's why I thought it could be a good discussion. Not because it's throwing shade at a Dem, but it's an issue that will be brought up. Why is that wrong?

As far as comparing Trump, I think that's a deflection because we all know what mental deficiencies he has shown the last 4 years. We understand and have discussed the habitual lying and blatant and inexplicable denying of facts, et al. This was an opportunity just to talk about a single issue about the other candidate. One that, as Tex pointed out, will be a strong attack from Trump. Why is discussing the validity of that attack, the perception by many that Biden is struggling, or possibly a counter by Biden's camp a bad thing? How is it inferred as support for the other? Is it because it doesn't paint the most positive picture of Biden? Just like both parties, both candidates have unbelievably glaring issues. Fair discussion should talk about both strengths and weaknesses equally.

My intention and want with this thread had nothing to do with Trump. That's not ignoring Trump's ridiculous, well documented and discussed behavior. That's focusing a thread on a different aspect of the upcoming campaigns and the presumptive nomination. 

[johnnyAU 3,651]

Bird is absolutely right bringing up the Biden subject. It will certainly be a topic of discussion if he gets the nomination.  That in no way, shape of form is "looking the other way" at Trump's tweets, sound bytes or actions...past or present.  

I believe I stated early on that Biden might be the best candidate to defeat Trump at the polls (and had he been the candidate last time rather than Hillary, he might be the POTUS now).  That still might be true, but his behavior over the last 6 months or so should be a bit concerning to folks on all sides of the political spectrum.

[homersapien 11,453]

Regardless of Biden's weaknesses (he wasn't my first choice), there is no doubt in my mind that he is fully capable of appointing fully qualified people to his administration.  There is no doubt in my mind that he will welcome a wide range of potentially conflicting perspectives from these people, discuss their pros and cons,  and than make a rational decision based on that discussion.  Especially when it comes to healthcare.

There is no doubt in my mind that he will emphasize the well-being and interests of the common working man and women instead of continuing to stack the deck in favor of the rich.  

There is no doubt in my mind that he will rebuild our relationships and global reputation, restore respect to the US, and promote global democracy.  There is no doubt in my mind that he will place the security and interests of the country above his personal interests.

I really don't give a s*** about Biden's verbal gaffes.  (George W. Bush had a similar "problem" but it didn't amount to squat when compared to his policy decisions.)

The election will be about retaining a narcissistic, psychopathic, lying, incompetent con man as president or replacing him with a decent, compassionate alternative with the experience to effectively do the job. 

[homersapien 11,453]

12 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Bird is absolutely right bringing up the Biden subject. It will certainly be a topic of discussion if he gets the nomination.  That in no way, shape of form is "looking the other way" at Trump's tweets, sound bytes or actions...past or present.  

I believe I stated early on that Biden might be the best candidate to defeat Trump at the polls (and had he been the candidate last time rather than Hillary, he might be the POTUS now).  That still might be true, but his behavior over the last 6 months or so should be a bit concerning to folks on all sides of the political spectrum.

Perhaps so, but it pales in comparison to Trump's behavior over literally his whole life.

This election will be about Trump, not Biden. That would be true regardless of who the Democrats ultimately nominated and regardless of what their faults are.

[McLoofus 35,182]

37 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Basically, it said that I think Joe has always been pretty sharp with his ability to verbally spar with others with the occasional "gaffe". That's not a big deal to me nor would it have been a reason to disqualify him from my vote. That said, he seems to have been making more obvious verbal "mistakes" lately compared to the normal gaffes he we are accustomed to from him. Does this mean he is more stressed and that's causing it, or more cameras and media attention so we're seeing it more often, or is it a symptom of some neurological issue? I'm not sure. Does anyone else know?

Why isn't "incorrect perception based on heightened scrutiny and awareness and larger sample size" an option? 

Can't imagine why Biden's opponents in the race for the nomination would've said anything negative about him months ago. Booker now endorses him, btw. Castro likely will eventually.

As for the perception that you're supporting Trump and throwing shade at Biden, aggressively policing the thread to try to keep our sitting POTUS's name out of it in a discussion about his opponent while feeling free to express your own opinion that Biden is too far left and "so flawed" doesn't help.

"Your guy is screwed up. What are your thoughts?" Naive at best to think that's going to yield the results you seek. 

[johnnyAU 3,651]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

That would be true regardless of who the Democrats ultimately nominated and regardless of what their faults are.

The statement isn't about "faults" in general. The concern isn't about Biden's character, it's about a potential mental health issue that could be worsening.   

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

his behavior over the last 6 months or so should be a bit concerning to folks on all sides of the political spectrum.

What is the value of that concern? What is the objective of it?