MSC

Alex, you're grasping at straws now. As are NBC and so is this neurologist whom I think really is just getting himself on tv right now. It would be quite easy for even the average person to tell if a person has had Parkinson's for up to 20 years. Why 20 years? The average age of onset is 60, with smaller groups being diagnosed earlier as young as 40. So unless Biden is a statistical anomaly and is showing the early symptoms of Parkinson's, at 81, I highly doubt this is the case. While all of this pointless arguing and ethically dubious from afar diagnosing is going on, we are expected to listen to the opinions of people who aren't around Biden very often, yet his cabinet, VP and own physician, the people who are around him everyday, and with Kamala Harris having everything to gain if Biden was unfit, they are just irrelevant? But some alleged neurologist misleading the public about the onset of Parkinson's is worth our attention? Please. Give it a few days and there will be another neurologist coming out and saying honestly, they couldn't diagnose anyone without a thorough exam. Just to see if anyone else actually knows; who here can explain why the president maintains his right to medical privacy or why his physician is not constitutionally bound to share any of the presidents medical info with the public? Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to why the physician to the president is usually a military doctor? How about you @Alex_Krycek care to take a few guesses? Maybe you're smart enough to know so I don't have to hold anyone's hand. Tell you what if he does a DaT and an MRI on Biden, then makes a determination, based on history, symptoms and physical condition, then I'll listen. Assuming Biden would even share that info.

Nazis are one person down

Indeed, although something like the liars paradox fits the question somewhat, your point is that outside a thought excercise, if we made a game out of telling who is the liar in a small group of people, the expectation is that at some point the liar will reveal truthfully, they were the liar all along for the sake of the game. There is as far as we know, no being bound to lying or bound to telling the truth with 100% consistency. So I suppose my response to OP is that truth can contradict itself in a language game where the language contradicts itself. In physical reality however, no, truth cannot contradict itself.

I'm kind of with you in this one MigL and a few of your most recent comments have seemed to hit a note with me. Not everything but a lot. I also get what Charony is saying, that the accumulation of capital in order to leverage authority through corporate lobbying/Bribery is a strategy of would be authoritarians. For me it's a case of not all capitalists lean authoritarian but lot's of money in the hands of a power hungry few, in a system that is greased primarily by money, is a recipe for a slow crawl toward dictatorship with an ever weakening democracy. Our reliance on money to make the entire apparatus of government and society to work, makes us weak as a species. Now, I'm not arguing for the abolition of capitalism, far from it. It does need to stop being put on a pedestal however, when the current structure has upper management capitalising on their workers/colleagues lack of power through capital, to take a bigger and bigger slice of the pie for themselves while lobbying against raising the minimum wage, fighting against living wage policies or union busting. As to the points of yours I do agree with; populism. I also find that confusing. Especially with project 2025 out there. What about Trumps platform is popular? It really is a poorly defined word that could have a few uses depending on the context but it seems to me that it's a term that ended up getting used because Trump said he is popular and fights for the people... when in reality most people think he's horrible and only works for himself. Or is populism now something to do with saying you'll give people exactly what they are asking for (in this case Trumps base) with overly simplistic solutions that your base can understand even though the issue is far more complex than the easy fix the public thinks is possible? Like "Build a wall".

Wi ither folks coal! I love how you always clock my humour for what it is my friend. And for those that don't know, long may yer lum reek means long may your chimney smoke. It's a wish of longlife, usually said on Hogmanay our new year celebration. You can ad "wi ither folks coal" to make it even more of a well wish and that particular addage originated in my hometown of Edinburgh.

Indeed. Before their recent decision the subject of presidents assassinating each other wasn't a legal grey area. Now who can fault us for having the discussion when the highest court seems to just be totally fine with talk of presidents assassinating each other with legal loopholes? Thing is though we all know the hypocrisy of that court would come careening out if Biden is the one committing terrible acts via their enablement and not Trump.

Wait so if I want Biden to gift me a kilt all I need to do is drive on the wrong side of the road?! I'm Scottish so you're really just making it sound like I'm one quick traffic infraction away from a free kilt. Also is fast a place? I've always wanted to go to fast. I've been to two places called Belfast but never just been to fast. Should I go there too?

And it's only going to get worse, for now at least you can tell the wazzock at the other end is human. In a few years? Who knows. When writing a little, says a lot. +1 You're absolutely right of course. Holding the wealthy or the powerful accountable is very difficult and even when it's clear laws have been broken. Take discrimination laws for example; as it stands the only people in a position to sue for unjustifiable discrimination in the area of employment law surrounding hiring, are individuals who already are independently wealthy enough to take an employer to court. If you are unjustifiably discriminated against for say just working a register in a store and need to keep looking, even if you got rejected from a job because the hiring manager or boss hates your skin tone or is creepily only looking for timid female employees, there really isn't much you can do in a legal system that is hostile toward pro se advocates vs companies with lawyers on retainer just for this. Meanwhile you'd still need to look for a job to make ends meet. Not to mention the majority of resources to help individuals find legal aid, qre geared towards unfair firing practices not hiring practices. And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to all the many many other ways the rich and powerful avoid accountability for both illegal acts and legal but unfair acts.

Indeed businesses aren't all run homogenously. The reason I mentioned referendums having the potential to be used more in business settings is ease of use of technological aides for votes due to drastically smaller voter pools of employees. Also; representative democracy applied in a business setting would endanger the companies operation if it becomes a popularity contest instead of merit based promotions. I suppose my pitch here for an alternative model isn't a desire for total mimicry of the political machines of representative democracy, more like a mixing of different ideas so that the top down corporate power structure is diluted into something that works better for all employees. I mean not every policy but some. For example policies that can have a direct impact on how customers interact with and treat employees in customer facing roles. One of my first jobs was customer service for a energy provider in the UK and I left that job because the company had refund policies which made it harder to make people whole when our system genuinely and verifiably overcharged them and if it ever got dealt with as a complaint, it was above my head even though I could see for myself we had made a mistake with meter readings. It's the sort of authority structure that is responsible for making the Chinese military an indecisive and corrupt mess, of nobody wanting to make decisions until time is wasted for a request to be allowed to act, be granted through a lengthy travel up the chain of command, even though you already have an idea of how to respond.

I challenge you to explain why without making me want to question it more!

I think the question in the title is great for a discussion but not in the way OP thinks. There is not so much a hidden lean toward authoritarianism in the world but it's external to politics. Ask yourself this; why is it in governance and politics we lean towards democracy and public co-ownership of the community, but in employment most of us work for businesses with top down power structures where the majority of employees have little to no say how the businesses is run despite having a vested financial security interest in seeing the business run well. I acknowledge the small existence of co-ops and public businesses yet I've not heard of much in the way of corporate referendums and democratic ship steering of business practices and policy. I also acknowledge it's not the same as governance but I still find it interesting to wonder how a business might be run more democratically from policy setting to pay structure. I'm not talking full on communism but I feel that companies that have a more team orientated egalitarian approach to profit sharing tend to have the most loyal employees and the most respected bosses. In the end, management is a job like every other job and like every other job in a business is essential so avoid anything even remotely resembling a pyramid as much as possible. Else from a certain perspective it just looks like management takes a cut of every individual under thems profit. If egalitarian pay was based on company success as opposed to determined by vocation, in conjunction with affordable non debt invoking education, you'd only see people being paid the same within the same company and employees would have much more reason to work together than play office politics to climb up ladders to chase money whether they are management suitable or not.

You've misinterpreted a bit. That Poll shows thats Biden is lower in unfavourability and higher in favorability than Trump. iNow earlier was still of the opinion it's too late in the game and at some point in all the replies it seems to have gotten a bit lost on who stands where, but as far as I'm aware he agrees with you MigL, as do I. He's just more patient with others who think Biden should be replaced than I am. Solid bar is favourability, dotted bar is unfavourability. Red is Trump, blue is Biden. Trumps dotted bar is highest because a larger majority doesn't like him. Bidens solid bar is higher than trumps because less people dislike him. Both are disliked more than 50% but Biden has more people who like him than those who like Trump. Like and dislike may not reflect voting habits though as some people can have a dislike for people they politically align with. So while some may still dislike both they will still vote for one. On voting day polls don't matter, just who is on the ballet when it's time to make the mark.

Just needs to read the news. It's just a general people are saying it and he has access to view people saying it, online or elsewhere. I couldn't say either way when it comes to his inner circle and party leadership. He isn't Trump though, I doubt he has built a culture around himself of nobody saying anything he doesn't want to hear, like Donald Trump. I don't agree with it and think the discussion is ridiculous to have at this time and I'd rather leave determinations to medical professionals or the VPs 25th ammendment powers. Maybe if he wasn't going against Trump and the threat to democracy wasn't so great I'd entertain the idea of replacement but all roads in this case are filled with risk as is the nature of dealing with people like Trump. Exactly! Biden is still more than capable of beating Trump and did it despite the same worries and concerns then as OP is discussing now. This isn't new for Biden. He won before despite these same criticisms being used last time.

I mean I've overheard a few older folks now all saying something along the lines of "If he wins a second term, I'm old as shit, would probably die before a trial or just not be in prison very long.... might have to take one for the team." So honestly if he keeps escaping legal consequences there may be a line of the old and terminally ill ready to step in and take care of the problem for us... hey, some of y'all are also old... It's just a suggestion, I know nothing. Anyone want to be a successful Von Stauffenberg?

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?