ewsieg

You'll love it

It's been a given for a week now, just taking some time for him to realize it. Yes, they know Biden's numbers suck yet they are too afraid to share with him, add in the fact that traditionally an incumbent wouldn't be challenged, despite the fact that he even said he would be a one time president to bridge to another person outside of Trump. I still don't understand how so many of you have fallen into this belief that he was a terrible speaker. He was a good speaker, borderline great speaker, who knew how to keep folks engaged. He's nothing now when it comes to speaking, he can't even campaign, but i'm told that's not important, so there is that.

They are, that's the problem.

What? Just because of his repeated back peddling on anything against Trump or a position that Trump would later come out against?

I think it came from the side, handful of folks look that way.

No problem touting anonymous sources when it suits you, huh?

I know you're conditioned to turn everything into Biden is awesome and unless it clearly promotes Biden it's probably Russia propaganda turning allies against each other....but..... Watch that clip again. It's not really funny, although she does a pretty good job with the voice and inflection, but watch it again and then look at Jon's response. It's not the W you seem to think it is.

Jesus, Nixon likely didn't win his election over JFK because he didn't put make up on. Appearance matters. Articulating why someone should vote for you has mattered to every candidate with the exception of Trump. Now, with democracy on the line, the plan is to put Trump who has proved he can win without articulating why against Biden who sometimes can kind of articulate why, especially if you already plan on voting for him and wouldn't vote for Trump if hell froze over. And I'm the asshole for questioning this? Also, despite what MB is telling you, after the debate debacle numerous sources went to legitimate reporters and claimed they were shocked at what they saw but stated that maybe they should have seen it coming as they were kept away from Biden more and more. People that work directly for the president are, albeit not on the record, claiming that he is faltering. This isn't some right wing nut saying this on twitter, legitimate reporters are hearing these stories. Could it be just smoke and no fire, possibly, but this isn't spaghetti thrown up against the wall.

I never suggested dementia, only Parkinson's and I understand the difference. That said, you need to acknowledge the public perception of this man's ability and what appears to be a failure to reliably make his case to the American people why he should be the next president. Seriously, you can't remember the CNN interview with the guy complaining about the price of milk and every Biden supporter mocked him about his issue was how much milk he was buying, not that it was more expensive. Quick look and I found an article about it, crap it was from 2021 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/people-are-having-a-cow-over-cnns-12-gallons-of-milk-a-week-segment-heres-why-11636051263 For the last year folks on this board have talked about inflation going down and refusing to acknowledge or give excuses on why it's 'still going down'. So yeah, this news about inflation is awesome and should be great news for Biden, but again, it may not land that well when you've been saying inflation really isn't an issue for so long already.

I'm stating there is a concern by some that his staff/wife may be making decisions on his behalf and not by his direction. And if not now, they doubt he'll be in a position to be making the decisions come the end of his second term. Think Dianne Feinstein towards the end of her run. California for at least a year were represented by an elected Senators chief of staff. The people of California did not elect that Chief of Staff, they didn't elect her colleagues in the Senate that had to quietly tell her to vote yay or nay. Yes, another bit of great news in which history would show a president in this position would easily skate to a 2nd term. Also, if every Dem partisan didn't spend the last two years first claiming there was no inflation and then claiming inflation was decreasing (when it was only the rate of increase that was decreasing), it might be easier to spread the good news.

You need to stop talking about preserving democracy when you're asking people to ignore the fact that Biden may not be fit for office, but his unelected staff is still better then the alternative.

I know i'm beating a dead horse, but I still feel like way to many people just accept this 100%. Biden has claimed that he 'had' a stutter. Yes, initially he claimed he 'had' a stutter when he was younger and got past it. It wasn't until 4 years ago that all of a sudden, he's always had a stutter and that's the reason for his gaffe's. My wife had a stutter and there is still one situation that forces her to pause and in her situation, restart a sentence that she got briefly interrupted in, instead of just continuing from the point of the interruption. It was a technique taught to her and that's the only time it presents itself. So certainly Biden may have continued to struggle with it, but again, he was never like he is now. Here are a couple of past speeches of his, one a bit off of the cuff, i'm sure part of it was planned, and then a teleprompter speech. The difference is stark and I challenge anyone to watch these and make the claim again that Biden was never an effective speaker.

The delegates pick the parties nominee, not the individual states, they do that at the convention. The only thing I heard is some law on Ohio's books which could affect a non-Biden candidate, but they aren't winning Ohio anyway. The delegates may be pledged to someone, but that's it. For decades one of the few things that each party was more than happy to do with each other is to wrap laws around to protect the two party system and that protects the parties, not the individuals in them. This isn't like an independent trying to get on the ballot in each state. As for funding, a party isn't going to find a way to transfer funding to another candidate? They are better at moving money than the Mob and like I said before, both sides protect each other when it comes to that. That money will absolutely get to a new candidate, no doubt about it.

Biden did alright yesterday. If there is no definitive force looking to remove him, he did good enough to quell the party. If there was a group that had already decided, I don't think he did well enough to stop that. MB, you're not wrong on most of the "Pro's" you tout about Biden, but a quote I heard from last night summed it up well. 'Biden proved tonight he can still run the country, but I don't think he can win the election'

Exactly, it is what it is. We let Biden give it the 'ole college try and hope he's gotten better since his college days (since he sucked at that). In the end, if Trump wins, we can all feel good about the fact that he tried his best. In fact you forced me to take the L on this so bad that I'm rethinking my entire political thoughts over the last 8-9 years. It's been extensively reported that so many top republicans made a ton of attempts to stop Trump initially and even from running again. Most never publicly did it, but they really tried behind the scenes and that's all that should really count. Guess I shouldn't hold that against them and consider voting for republicans again.

Or, just go with me here, maybe if you 1) Believe the DNC narrative that this may be our last election if Trump wins and 2) Think you can't beat Trump with Biden, maybe you should be vocal about it instead of worrying about your standing in the party? Is this not the same forum that praises Cheney and Kinzinger for speaking out against their party and mocks the rest for 'knowing Trump sucks' but just going with it? Yesterday's Bulwark had Ezra Klein on it and he stated that off the record, every major democrat he's talked to about this has told him they don't think Biden can beat Trump, but would prefer not to disrupt the apple cart and are resigned to the fact that they'll lose and just to get ready to win it back in 2028.

I didn't realize that the WH came out and 'clarified' he was seen by the Neuro doc on 1/17, previously they stated it was done when he got his annual exam, which was 2/28. (Another words the lazy NYT reporter was correct and the Biden administration was lazy in their response) In the back of my mind I'm thinking that I was told POTUS always goes to Walter Reed, so if that's the rule/tradition, why? Not a big deal though, to be honest this is what i'd expect for POTUS, although no one is selling me that everyone else that works in the WH gets to see their specialist there too. But getting back on point, his annual was done on 2/28 and that day the WH released a statement that said no signs of trouble were discovered. Again, maybe i'm wrong, but i'm assuming most healthy people with no concerns don't go and see specialists prior to an annual check up. So maybe a questioning person might ask why see a Neuro doctor if there are no concerns and he was scheduled for his yearly checkup just a month later which would determine if there was any need to see any type of specialists.

Initially it was that this doc went to the White House and that's apparently normal for a specialist to go there because as you said, it just makes sense for people at that pay grade to have that service there and not deal with DC traffic, but then when I show Biden went to Walter Reed for his annual, which is when the WH stated he saw this doc, well, of course he did, that's where the president always goes. So the WH decided it was better to bring in not only Doctors, but even specialists into the WH for everone BUT the president? Simply because of tradition? As Biden says "C'mon man". There is more to this and the cover up is annoying as I hate getting lied to. That said I do understand I shouldn't question as Trump is the bigger threat. That said I didn't go down that no questioning rode when Trump took over the GOP and I don't particularly want to start now.

They said Biden was only examined by him during his annual, I just posted a video of Biden going to Walter reed for his last annual. So it’s a regular occurrence for this specialist to see people at the White House that are apparently above POTUS’ pay grade?

Still so much smoke related to this. https://www.c-span.org/video/?533910-1/president-biden-heads-walter-reed-annual-physical-exam So POTUS goes to Walter Reed for his annual and per the White House correspondence relating to this, Biden gave permission to release the fact that he did see this Neuro doctor at his physical (which again was done at Walter Reed). But when a pilot on Marine 1 needs to see the Neuro, he just flies over to the WH to see his specialist? This is what i'm thinking, and in a weird way, kind of hope it's true as I want the person I vote for to be mentally fit for the job. I think his doctor was concerned he might have Parkinson's and he's been consulting with this specialist. Even if they felt he did have it (it's not like there is a bloodtest), I'm sure Biden wouldn't want them to put that on paper, once that's done, it's another battle to face. Then I imagine something like this: Biden - "so even if you think I have Parkinson's, once you diagnose me with this, is there anything to prevent me from my job" Doc - "No sir, mentally you are fine, we can give you drugs and focus on diet and physical conditioning" Biden - "What if I disagree with your findings and we still focus on diet and physical conditioning in case i'm wrong, and go without the drugs" Doc - "Well sir..... do you find yourself anxious?" Biden - "Not particularly, but my job is pretty stressful" Doc - "Well sir, there is a drug called Levodopa which we show helps with stress, depression, and anxiety. How about we get you started on that and because of your age we should continue to focus on your diet and excercise.... will that work" Biden - "Sounds like a plan" Then 4 months later you can have your communications team saying he isn't diagnosed or taking Parkinson medication. Very well could be wrong, but I definitely think my 'story' is more believable than what the White House said. A specialist is not regularly seeing WH staff at the WH but making POTUS go to Walter Reed to see him. As for his trips to the WH, there was recent legislation related to Parkinson's which would be an obvious reason why he might go. My cousin regularly went to the WH back when she was working for the government on climate change research. But that would have been the story out of the WH if that was the case, not this half-cocked 'oh we can't name the specialist that may have seen one of the thousands of people that work at the WH for fear of hipaa laws'.

Is Ford really that behind on hybrid tech? Seems like they had a ton of hybrid vehicles for years and that plug in hybrid, cmax, that's at least 10 years old, right? I do think they lost some ground in the last few years with their EV push, but hopefully aren't starting from scratch on hybrid.

They are trailing to a guy that actually tried to overthrow the election, is mocked by even many of his own supporters, and has basically only said all of the currently illegal things he'd do once he is elected again. Doesn't seem that good of a job to me.

Glad to see you're eating up their excuses without any questions. To be fair, to question them means you're subverting democracy though so I get why you wouldn't do that. How did Biden's doctors letter start out? Something like 'due to hipaa we normally wouldn't say anything, but I got permission from the doctor and biden to let you know that doctor has seen other patients at the WH.' You can't say a doctor works at a facility due to Hipaa? Seriously? And he's treated 1000's of people at the WH? In looking up information on the white house medical center it's primary function is the president and their family along with dealing with any urgent care needs that might happen at the White House and not until more recently, has the scope been pushed out to include the VP and their family as well. Maybe I could get past a general doc on staff too for full time employees, but a specialist? 1000's of people? So are we sending folks to the WH for care or do we really have 1000's of people that work full time at the white house that need to see Neuro docs?

So are you saying that is the preferred route, we should just let the first lady/man handle the job if the elected person can't?

I get that you're all in for Biden, but stop spreading lies, just like this Biden administration is doing right now. A major donor has already said who ever steps in they'll give 100m to start, the DNC money would legally find a way to the new candidate as well. This is all assuming Biden steps down and endorses a process. But it looks like he's not going to, so we move forward. That said, it's pretty clear that folks within the administration and Jill Biden are concerned with him in public. This Neuro has been the WH umpteen times, but only saw Biden on the three yearly exams and saw other folks the other times? I could be wrong, but that doesn't sound plausible or likely in any way. Plus now Hunter is in on meetings as Jill/Hunter appear to be circling the wagons around Joe. And if his health truly is faltering recently, how many people were in on this? And the right thing to do is simply ignore it? So many questions that should have been asked along the way that we're just hearing now. By voting for Biden, at least personally, I'm convinced that I will be electing a figurehead and that an unelected person will actually be running the country. I'm not saying it's never happened, but it doesn't mean I like it. And I don't find it healthy in a democracy. The alternative is worse, so i'll still vote for him, but stop playing the "Democracy" card as it makes you sound partisan and foolish.