MSC

This subject is so uncertain that I can make the exact same statement with one alteration; Credit for that could be lost, along with the election, if the democrats change candidates this late. The historical data on this is really not good. LBJ stepped down 7 months before the election and Nixon narrowly won due to democratic infighting over who would be best to replace LBJ. It's already a close race between Biden and Trump, if we hypothetically assume that Biden will step down in the next week, that leaves a little over 4 months left before the election. Reagan actually made a pledge that he would resign or back away from a second term run if he felt any form of cognitive decline. He left office in 89, was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 94 and died ten years later. The age question has been around for decades and it is a question of competency really. However, put yourself in Bidens shoes, you've got people telling you that you should resign, meanwhile your own Doctors are telling you that you're fine and just need a bit more sleep in your routine. Something that kind of gets lost on people is the double edged sword of being the incumbent, the very reason LBJ stepped down. The challenger can just campaign, the incumbent has to campaign and still do the job of being president. Johnson couldn't get any kind of passion for campaigning when he was trying to de-escalate the war in Vietnam and was suffering from a dive in popularity because of the war, domestic policy track record aside. So yeah, based on that it doesn't surprise me that when you put Trump and Biden next to each other, the one who is working harder is the one who appears tired.

No I agree with this and I'm 30. This is why earlier I said i don't trust polls as far as I can throw them until we are much closer to election day. A new ipsos poll was just released already showing recovery in Bidens position with neck and neck 40% support each.

Tell you what actually, read and address everything I've written. Spelled it out for you why it won't work now. Harris polls worse and nobody else is running to step in and suggest they can do it. So explain how this is supposed to work and explain how someone new is supposed to mass up enough support in less than 5 months before the election? Explain how this doesn't go worse than when LBJ stepped down and was replaced by Nixon? And when LBJ stepped down, there were about 7 months to the election. This is just an example of the sort of infighting that will not quiet down before the election and ridiculous standards Biden is held to that Trump never got close to meeting in the first place. But hey, if Biden steps down, I hope you're right that a new person can win but if they lose I'm gonna come back here to say I told you so. He's the only candidate who was up for it it seems. Oh so now because we are sure a less than 5 month campaign isn't going to beat Trump, we are blue MAGA? Don't you have to deny reality to be considered MAGA? Like Obama at the end of his second term. Definitely not an easy job. We will probably find out in the next two weeks what the democrats will decide to do and I think it will be largely based on what Biden chooses to do. If he opts not to drop out, the DNC will have a choice to make, support him or actively work against him for not falling in line behind the convention and I doubt they will do latter as that will only benefit Trump. If you're going to argue that he isn't the best man for the job to beat Trump, despite having the best chance of anyone in this country on incumbency alone, you're going to have to start making suggestions for who could actually replace him that also has a chance of beating Trump that isn't a fever dream. Michelle Obama is out as she doesn't want to do it, Bernie is older than Biden, Harris polls worse than Biden and the democratic primary was dead with only Biden and one Wisconsin unknown barely making any impact at all. Keep in mind whomever you suggest needs to have a distinct lack of skeletons in their closet because the Republicans will drag them out, or claim a pressed suit is a skeleton and cry fake news when you show them a picture of the suit. I'm open to being convinced but you actually need to start having the discussion you started in order to do that. I want names, bios and good arguments in favour of other candidates, otherwise this thread is just a place for you to vent about how you feel about Biden and nothing else. It also occurs to me that I'd agree with OP completely if Biden was facing off against someone like Bush or Romney, but it's against Trump and the risks associated with losing are just too great. Like I said, this feels like deciding between which of your own feet to shoot. On that note Biden is still the dominant foot to me and there are so many unknowns surrounding replacing him.

Besides her are there any obvious choices who would also retain the African American voters? What stuck out for you?

Hate that I agree but that is what we are dealing with isn't it. 😕

But you also don't know that it isn't a blip. Some key things to keep in mind; these are very psychologically stressed out elderly people. Trump and Biden. Let's get that right. The format of the debate is relatively new also which adds to the stress. Also we as ordinary people can't really fathom that stress. It's a live debate, televised and broadcast to billions of people, because it wasn't just watched by the USA the world has a vested interest in knowing what's going on with the US presidential elections. Now onto Biden, who it should be known, has had troubles with stammering and stuttering his entire life. Stammers and stutters are harder to control and flare up as stress increases. Let's take a moment to maybe imagine the narrative as it could be in his head. "I've got to engage in a debate and talk to this extremely dangerous individual, this would be Hitler, this Stalin and Putin fanboy. I've got to do well, I can't let people buy more of this mans crap, if I lose, US democracy could fail and fall and it could have devastating ramifications for my country and the world." Now, I've only seen a little bit of the debate so far, but I'm going to watch it all through and if anyone has any examples of worrying behaviour they saw during the debate they should probably start to pick them out and share them here. If we are going to seriously have this discussion then I would implore everyone here to stop assuming either way and determine what the most probable answer actually is by viewing the primary source and discussing it more directly. Will post more when I've finished the whole thing. Well that's a problem. So basically either Biden stays on until he beats Trump in November or he tags Harris and hopes she can win in November. Since there are essentially no other takers. So the question that matters for the sake of the discussion; could Harris beat Trump and could she do it more tidily than Biden could? What do you think @iNow? You have been pretty level headed through out this discussion and we usually align politically pretty well so I'm curious as to what you think of Harris and her chances hypothetically.

I appreciate you standing up for others, but I'm polemically turning up the heat with a reasonable intent as to why. Can't say much more than that at the moment. As far as I'm concerned, unless Michelle Obama does a full 180 and suddenly becomes keen to replace Biden, I just see Unity behind Biden as the best way to beat Trump now and right now by engaging in this debate about Bidens mental competency, we are playing into Trumps hands, this is what he wants. This is what he does. When his competency, cognitive, mental and moral competency are far worse than Bidens every day of the week, here we are discussing Bidens way too late in the game.

Oh I definitely have a personal bias, towards reality and pragmatism. 5 months away from an election. Your analysis isn't objective because it's only dealing with the candidates, not the circumstances and context the candidates are in nor does it fall in line with a win contribution strategy because you're only encouraging doubt in the person we need to beat Trump in a time where it will do no good. Basically none of your criticisms are going to be constructive and this thread should have went up months ago or even a year ago in order for us to consider it an objectively viable alternative.

The line between excuse and explanation resides in whether it is false/irrelevant or true.

It occurs to me; what the hell happened to high crimes and misdemeanors? Literally a whole set of crimes that can only be carried out by people in a position of authority and now Trump just can't be charged with any of them? I guess I'm still reeling from the court decision and still struggling to come to terms with this ridiculous notion the Supreme court tried to put in everyones head about protecting future presidents from criminal prosecution, not whether or not a crime was actually committed. As far as I am concerned, if every subsequent president is stupid enough to use their position to commit crimes then yeah, I do want each and every single one of them brought to justice. What does more damage? Replacing the boss every few years( which we do anyway!) or everytime they do something wrong, or having a boss who flouts the law and is harming the people he swore to help? Why was simple truth as a legal concept so far from the doors of the court? How can they so stupidly and brazenly turn into a clearly political entity and not a judicial one in front of everyone rejecting call after call to recuse and destroying the credibility of the court and for what? Trump? Fascism? This idea that only a select group must be allowed to vote for democracy to thrive? What was it for? That Piggy guy? I don't know. Also curious.

You're forgetting a crucial detail, pollsters themselves haven't caught up with shifting demographics, as evidenced by how off the marked result they have been in recent years and there is no poll that tells you what tomorrows poll will say. Polls can change a fair number of times and there are still 5 months before the election. 5 months is a long time in politics. Personally I don't trust polls as far as I can kick them until we are a month out and people start actually tuning in to voter mentality in earnest. Psychologically we are still a few months away from that point but political awareness will gradually increase now, but so too will propaganda like the crap you're spinning. Personally I don't care how Biden came off in one debate when Trumps threat is so dire. Trust me, film me everyday for a year and the day you catch me without having had my morning coffee is the day you accuse me of showing signs of cognitive decline. If the presidential job was just debating I'd say Biden is in trouble... but that's not what the job is at all and it's primarily the job of decision maker and management. He's not expected to be in the Senate arguing for his own bills and as president and not a campaigner, he doesn't debate opponents on stage. So why care about how well he does in a debate when his agendas and plans are laid out and transparent in other places anyway and again, it's one debate and people are allowed to have an off day. Honestly, the jumping to conclusions based on one TV appearance isn't even something medical professionals tend to do either, so if they aren't, on what basis do you claim to have the right to be taken seriously here? In the end, Biden is the sort of President who will surround himself with people who are there to aid him and would actually step down if he needed to. Trump isn't that sort of president. Ultimately some people can be of the opinion that going with Biden would be akin to the democrats shooting themselves in the foot. Fair enough, it's a close race. Honestly though, so is dropping him and going for a new candidate so close to the Election. Where is the better choice between shooting yourself in either your right or left foot? Honestly though if you want someone to blame for not having a better democrat candidate; look no further than the news media. Who barely said a word or gave any coverage to the democratic primaries as it was all saturated with the lost cause republican primaries when everyone knew the base was gonna blindly follow Trump over a cliff and win the primary for him. The primary that actually could have mattered, was barely covered. I read the news a fair amount and I can't tell you a single name of any democrat challenger to Biden at all. Why? Seriously why? What the fuck were they thinking?

With the Supreme court deciding that checks and balances don't work unless you can avoid checks and balances... Can Biden just... take care of TFG now? But you know... officially? A blacked out CIA hit with the presidential seal on the heavily redacted documents should count right? National security and whatnot. Also do we all know where this is going now? Once the lower courts rerule and defines the difference between an official and a private act, Trumps legal team is just gonna cry foul on that one too and demand the Supreme court delivers it's own definitions and rulings on that also, after it sits in the damn docket until it has at least an inch or so of dust on the damn thing and it requires a professional museum level document restoration treatment. Honestly if this Hitleruesque slow coup the Republicans are encouraging doesn't go their way and they lose, the democrats when next in majority will stack that court and rebalance it ASAP. They should really quit while they are ahead. Personally, I'm of the opinion that their has to be some recognition within the highest offices of all the branches of government of the strict need for term limits on the basis that incredible power corrupts incredibly well. Presidents, speakers, SCJs, two terms. No more than that. Enough is enough, it's true of the presidency and at this point a logical move applied in one way, inconsistently applied in the same way again for the same scenario, is madness. It's like watching a toddler put the square peg into the square hole one time and then failing to do it again for weeks. Like come on? You had this?! What the hell happened? Seriously though, why was it never implemented before once they implemented term limits for presidents? Seems like just a half complete job.

I find it ironic that an ongoing war pulled LBJs popularity down while pulling out of Afghanistan brought down Bidens.

Lol I stand corrected. Yeah my external view of American politics didn't really clock in to anyone other than primary winners until I moved here in 2018. Forgive my ignorance. That said, I do think if he did have trouble maintaining his mental acuity at any point for age related reasons over the next four years, he'd step down and have the VP step in. Which strategically would be the best move to beat the Trump movement in 2028. It will mean KH or some other VP (I'm assuming he's sticking with Harris for his running mate this time around too?) Will have the incumbent advantage in 2028 but won't be close to their 2 term maximum either.

Agreed. Biden is at 9 out of 13 keys and one of those is incumbancy. I also take issue with I disagree. Biden has way more than just one thing going for him, unfortunately what he doesn't have going for him, is a competent news media industry capable of actually spreading just how successful his track record as president has actually been in terms of commitment to promises and advertised agenda being achieved. That infrastructure investment wasn't nothing, the economy improved as much as it could after Trumps economy wrecking policies and a pandemic. Honestly, if we weren't living in such polarized times, peoples view of Biden would be far different. People also forget, Biden didn't want to be president. If he had, he would have ran in 2016. Duty made him run, not ambition. Duty to protect the democracy he has worked in tirelessly for decades from Trump and his ilk. Here is the thing that really separates Biden and Trump; Trump could be demented and still wouldn't quit. He would endanger so many people by egoicly gripping onto power in his mental decline. As for Joe Biden, while finding a new candidate isn't impossible, finding one who can spread and share their vision/plan, with only a short campaign, enough to convince a very polarised group of voters to actually win? That's a long and steep uphill battle so late in the game under pre-internet conditions. But you know that whomever runs against Trump is going to be dragged through the mud and will be immediately hated by every echo chamber dwelling trump obsessed moron there is and even by democrats. With the way the internet is now, if most people can't even articulate what Joe Bidens achievements are because the press don't cover it well enough to break through the personal filters of most peoples news access, how is a new person going to fare any better?

I am a native English speaker. Let me know what you had trouble with and I'll try my best to help you understand.

I really do sympathise with where you're coming from, I really do. Unfortunately, Putin has more than just Russia brainwashed when it comes to the realities of nuclear war. For example, I'm not sure if Putin would ever really use them unless attacked first but he has a lot of people convinced he absolutely would including many different heads of state. However keeping in mind that one mans nuclear deterrent is another mans nuclear blackmail and at the international level this is important; if a nuclear armed member of Nato, openly adopts more aggressive/provocative forein nuclear policy or give any nuclear associated deadlines (For example; Putin take your trips from Ukraine within 60 days or face nuclear annihilation) it will be met with very mixed reactions and will walk into some of Putins claims about NATO intimidation. I do have one question for you; How sure are you that Putin 1. Cares for the Russian peoples opinions more than his own agenda? 2. How sure are you that his reaction wouldn't just be to stamp down on Russian civilians with more brutality if he feels his power is threatened by the mob? Where in Russia are you from? My boss is from St Petersburg.

Ngl Phi I'm getting dissociative psychosis vibes from him at this point. Just based on the randomness of the tangents, it's like he's replying to how he pervieved peoples responses and their content rather than saw them and half responding to his own thoughts like he's fallen back on using himself as a sounding board. It's all been a bit much for him.

I understand what you are saying; that nuclear deterrents don't work unless you broadcast a plan to use them. There is one issue with symmetrical response though. With the nature of missile warfare being what it is, missile defense systems are far too sophisticated to be overwhelmed by a 1 for 1 tit for tat strike plan. For both NATO and Russia, in order to overwhelm missile defense systems, they need to fire multiple active warheads at the same target in order to ensure the targets destruction, firing at more than one target to spread thin defensive capabilities, reduce the firing range via strategic placement of nuclear armed submarines and other more mobile methods of payload delivery, and make use of hypersonic missile technology. These strategies could also be mitigated if both sides have secretly working PDL systems and it is assumed that both sides have been working on this within highly classified R&D efforts. Simply put, due to the existence of missile defense technology, what nuclear warfare will actually look like is far more terrifying than what people think it will look like. In a nuclear war, major cities and strategic targets will likely be hit by more than one warhead. It won't be a case of one for Moscow and one for Washington, each target is going to be targeted with clusters of nuclear weapons.

You're not a hero and the world doesn't revolve around you. Have you ever accompanied a stranger to the hospital? Have you rushed to help them in a storm? Have you given up home and family to help someone? Have you sacrificed everything just to be close to your child? Have you ever uprooted yourself and moved multiple times so the mother of your child can continue to have a relationship with her first who isn't even yours? Have you ever even changed a diaper or been responsible for keeping a little human alive everyday? Have you ever sacrificed your own wants and desires purely for another person on a consistent basis? Heroes don't exist. Just flawed people. I am flawed, you are flawed. The difference between is I can accept outside perspectives on my flaws to constructively improve myself, nomatter the format those outside perspectives are delivered in, even if unfair.

If Spirit animals were in any way scientific, John Oliver would be mine. Yeah this is terrifying. I can't even begin to fathom just how many areas of life and society in the US and abroad this could impact and in so many different ways. Especially when it comes to judicial civil servants and anything that touches law enforcement or the checks and balances apparatus that is supposed to define the very need for a 3 body government. Lets say Trump wins the election this year, inputs schedule F, in the next election, they could dismantle election integrity down to nothing, disenfranchisement on a mass scale, a supreme court supermajority ready to smack down challenges from Democrats and give the presidency to a Trump lackey ready to start dismantling the 2 term presidency rule.

No, we are taking the time to write substantive posts with nuanced detail and you're painting all of us here a certain way because we aren't overly sympathetic to the plights of the involuntary celibate because it is usually a problem the involuntary celibibates themselves are responsible for? Wtf do you want us to do? Give women a hard time for saying no to certain people? Fat chance. That's called encouraging rape. Nobody here is gaslighting you either we just refuse to play sycophant to OP and their messed up way of thinking about things. Yes, because people who point out when we are wrong can only be jerks? It's never the person saying stupid sounding stuff that is a jerk... People have already said this is a false equivalency. For countless reasons. The plight of the homeless is so not the same as what incels experience and the fact that you think they are equivalent betrays the objectification incels put women through. You can buy a house, you can rent a house. You can't legally buy or rent a women (you can rent a women in places where prositution is legal but it isn't in most places, the legality of prositution would be OT however.) When you commit to live in a house, you have to enter into negotiations with the owner about how that will work. Women, don't have owners. Homeless people by not having a home are at constant risk of death by exposure to extreme weather conditions or victimisation on the streets. Incels by not having sex, are not having sex. At most they are touch starved, which is a real physiological issue, however the cure to touch starvation isn't sex, it's touch. Hugging a friend or family member achieves this. Improving the quality of the platonic relationships you have is key to this. Here is my observation; Friends, real friends, set each other up romantically. If this isn't happening, then it makes me wonder; Is OP also inept at cultivating healthy platonic relationships with people? Orgo, stop comparing homelessness to involuntary celibacy. They are not the same. Instead of inadequately trying to defend implicit demands from us telling him to get help, maybe you can actually show you care enough about him to honestly show him a bit of tough love. I'm sorry we aren't sugercoating things enough for you, but you can't suger coat bitter truths.

Here is the difference between me and you, we both can find a way to empathise with OPs plight but whereas you assume things about him, I go off the content of his character based on what I know about how he writes and his choice of words and ultimately just remembering things he's said. He said he is unapologetically selfish for example just a few pages back. Well, I'm doing him a favour by saying if you're like that, finding someone is going to be a lot harder and it seems like whomever that someone is will need to be a masochist to some degree because I don't think OP in his current mental state is capable of treating a partner with respect consistently enough to not abuse them out of callousness. And again, the fix to that is going to a therapist or someone who can help, honestly saying "I'm really selfish, it's stopping me from forming relationships. How can I be less selfish?" And just going from there.

Just pulling this quote out here. But who knows, maybe if incels keep telling women that they arent identifying what is subjectively attractive correctly, they'll get somewhere... Maybe if they get right up in a womens face and scream "My favourite colour is red, like me because it means I'm powerful!" They'll swoon? Or maybe, women with moral compasses aren't into men who sound like they just got out of the Sith Academy on Korriban...

And to add to this @orgotude; the people best equipped to deal with this, aren't here. We aren't professional therapists able to detach from our own feelings on things to listen to others for hours on end. There has been plenty of compassion and offers of help thrown at OP. OP doesn't trust therapists or the people best trained to legitimately help him improve his life and you can only vent about things that bother you for so long before you're not venting, you're obsessing and dosing yourself with the same stress cocktail you had before you started venting. It's a bad cycle to get into. OP feels like he is a victim in some way and that not having sexual partners is some kind of trauma done purposefully by other people when really it's just people exercising their free will to say no verbally and non verbally. If he continues to just not move forward and start focussing on what he can control, himself and who he chooses to be, instead of wishing he could control the women he wants into sleeping with him or for someone to arrange a relationship for him when he hasn't proven himself capable of handling one, then social deterrents and consequences are going to come out. This is human nature.