His decline is getting more and more obvious, and I don’t think there’s much of a chance he serves his entire term.
Unless things get much worse quickly (which is entirely possible), I think he’ll stay in office until after the midterms.
Anyone else care to make a prediction?
I know what you mean. I miss the previous administration. The previous administration had miracle treatments for Covid like injecting bleach, hydroxychloroquine, and UV light enemas or however the UV light was supposed to be delivered to treat Covid. The president was never really clear on exactly how the UV light was supposed to be delivered. Dr. Trump’s intuitive understanding of medicine and his ideas were so advanced that Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, and the rest of the medical establishment had no idea of what he was talking about. Such an intelligent and forward thinker that he stumped the medical establishment. What does Biden have? Vaccinations? Is that it? Why can’t he have those miracle treatments that Trump had? He should at least come up with a great idea like injecting bleach. Must be cognitive decline that prevents him in coming up with good ideas like that.
Get that old fogy out of there! The previous guy was only four years younger, but he still had enough vim, vigor, and vitality to know what kissing and hugging are all about. That whipper snapper will be back in office any way in August, according to the infallible Q.
Leaving aside your whataboutism, are you disputing the idea that Biden is showing increasingly worrying signs of age-related dementia?
I’m legitimately surprised by people’s reluctance to admit this one. The man’s clearly a shell of himself from just a few years ago.
Is it that if they admit the obvious they’d have to wonder whether supporting Biden as the leader of the free world was the right choice? But most of them have already committed to the idea that Trump was the worst thing ever, and if you accept that, I can understand why you might feel obligated to put forward a suboptimal candidate and not risk admitting the obvious. Not sure I like it, but I can understand the reasoning.
But once you’ve won that fight, what’s the point in pretending otherwise?
Trump Derangement Syndrome has a lot of strange effects.
I was thinking some more about this in the context of Canadian politics. We might be having an election soon: our prime minister — after spending unprecedented amounts of money and not getting much for it during the pandemic — is throwing money around again.
His big-C Conservative opponent has decided to attack Canadian small-c conservatives whenever needed — some days, it feels more like whenever possible — to attempt to position himself as a centrist, and to somehow avoid the inevitable attacks from the media party. This is as foolish a hope north of the border as south of it. There have even been shenanigans directed at conservative journalists, some of whom I have a friend-of-an-acquaintance-of-a-friend connection to.
Nevertheless, under the circumstances I’d still support his party because I consider Trudeau the greater threat. Being beaten on the hand with a herring, while still unpleasant, is better than being beaten with a baseball bat on the head.
So I can imagine people who felt about Trump like I feel about Trudeau (except for the pathology, anyway) being willing to talk themselves into supported Biden despite their concerns. I might still begrudgingly drag myself to the voting booth and tick blue (which here is the conservative colour).
But I wouldn’t pretend O’Toole’s problems don’t exist, I’d just plead that circumstances necessitated tolerating them. Right or wrong, that’s defensible. Denying the problems isn’t.
QUOTE: I’m legitimately surprised by people’s reluctance to admit this one. The man’s clearly a shell of himself from just a few years ago.
Admit what? If it’s to admit the man is aging and is slower than when he was a younger politican…no issue there…guilty as charged. Yet, if it is to admit mental incompetence then we need to follow conservatives’ lead and ask for validation. When questions were raised about Trump’s mental competence, conservatives quickly came to his defense indicating there was no validation of such…mere observation could not determine such a thing. What was their reluctance to admitting it? So, Biden’s detractors can disagree with and even dislike him…all fair game. Yet, they need to validate accusations of mental incompetence…if they expect to be taken seriously…especially after defending Trump.
QUOTE: I can understand why you might feel obligated to put forward a suboptimal candidate and not risk admitting the obvious.
Suboptimal candidate by who’s standard? If it’s the majority of American people, their view was made quite clear, as he won the presidential election by historic proportions. His supporters turned out in record numbers during the middle of deadly pandemic. He surpassed the predictions of his failure and decline from his detractors at every stage of the election process. For much of his short tenure as president, Biden’s approval ratings have been higher than his predecessor.
BTW, would Trump be considered a suboptimal candidate? Isn’t it curious that his supporters had to invent a fake syndrome to justify the majority of the electorate’s reaction to him?
A normal human being, when confronted with the idea that someone simply proposed injecting bleach, would be somewhat sceptical. Apparently I’m normal, because (as Monk would say) here’s what happened:
Bryan, acting DHS undersecretary for science and tech, was talking about what the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab was doing. He said that “the virus dies quickest in the presence of direct sunlight” and that there was “a very significant difference when it gets hit with UV rays.” As well: “bleach will kill the virus in five minutes; isopropyl alcohol will kill the virus in 30 seconds, and that’s with no manipulation, no rubbing — just spraying it on and letting it go.”
Enter Trump, practical-minded and not very theoretical, and curious about if we can do anything with these two approaches that we know work:
TRUMP: So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting.
BRYAN: We’ll get to the right folks who could.
TRUMP: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, *by injection inside or almost a cleaning*. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.
Far from coming up with crazy theories of his own, Trump is simply asking about what if anything practical can be done with the results of the Johns Hopkins study, on the virus-killing properties of light and bleach and alcohol, which were JUST ANNOUNCED IN FRONT OF HIM. Is there a form of the disinfectants which _could_ be injected? I know that most times you take a pill you’re taking isopropyl alcohol, it’s a common solvent, so in low doses it’s fine. Would that work? Or if we coat the skin with the disinfectant, like we’re always cleaning our hands, does that help? If we know light works as a disinfectant, can we do anything with it?
Perfectly reasonable questions, and in the context of announcing results, almost the politely expected follow-up questions.
Scott Adams appropriately called this a national IQ test, and that the results weren’t promising. “How dumb would you have to be to interpret it as, ‘he was asking the public should you inject bleach and isopropyl alcohol into your veins?'” he asked.
Ah, but maybe I’m giving Trump too much credit. Maybe I’m trying to latch onto an alternative interpretation just because I’m annoyed at how often Trump is deliberately misconstrued by people who know better. I mean, it’s not like he explicitly said he’s obviously not talking about direct injections of bleach a few sentences later when questioned on it, right?
KARL: Can I ask about — the President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned. There’s no scenario that could be injected into a person, is there? I mean —
BRYAN: No, I’m here to talk about the findings that we had in the study. We won’t do that within that lab and our lab. So —
TRUMP: *It wouldn’t be through injection*. We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.
He was asking pretty bland and basic questions, a listener politely trying to figure out if any of the results of the study he’s just heard about are applicable to what he cares about. Everyone who’s ever attended a conference talk reporting results on fundamental research is familiar with this routine.
Since he’s not a very original thinker, his questions are pretty obvious — okay, you’re saying things you know can kill the virus: can we use them to kill the virus somehow? — and it’d be fair to complain that his followups weren’t very creative.
Still, he apparently manages to out-think some people who come to mind.
But the very next day Trump said, “I was asking the question sarcastically.” So much for the above-stated defense of the former president.
Trump is regularly needlessly defensive when attacked, and not uncommonly dishonest when he wants to get himself out of trouble. The video certainly doesn’t make it seem like he was being sarcastic, as Trump opponents pointed out at the time.
See? It’s easy to point out weaknesses in a candidate you support on other grounds without ignoring his manifest failings.
He was forced to be defensive or admit that he is just a goofball.
There are many ways in which a man can be a goofball. Asking about possible applications of a research presentation he just attended is not among them.
Both coming up with an obviously false excuse for something which didn’t one and tendentiously embracing a clearly inaccurate reading of his words may qualify. This gives Trump and his enemies something in common: a willingness to put truth second over defence and attack.
He obviously looked like a goofball by his questions and he was painfully aware of it, however much his defenders squint their eyes and twist themselves into pretzels to see it otherwise. If, however, we grant for the sake of argument the assumption that he was really not being goofy, his claim to being engaged in sarcasm not only indicates that he was well aware of his goofiness, but also in addition his willingness to engage in deceit for the sake of saving face. The same thing occurred when he backpedaled from favoring Putin over American intelligence. He had been caught with his pants down and immediately afterwards tried to lie his way out of his embarrassment. To call such a morally depraved person suboptimal as presidential material would be an extreme understatement.
But DSM, you’re trying to be honest about what actually happened. That’s not the way it works. You have to start every thought with “orange man bad” and say whatever is necessary to support that axiom.
Speaking of “orange bad man,” I haven’t seen much of that kind of thing from his critics among the politician and media (at least what one calls “mainstream”). That is more the style of Joe Blow on Facebook. “Sleepy Joe,” however, is well known to be Trump’s starting point for attacking Biden.
QUOTE: His decline is getting more and more obvious…unless things get much worse quickly (which is entirely possible)…
As a senior citizen, it’s possible there could be some decline for Biden. Interestingly, similar predictions were made about his ability to compete and endure the primaries, debates and general election. Yet, time has proven those predictions invalid. We’ll have to wait and see if his detractors are right this time. After all, even a broken clock is right at least twice a day in the US.
That said, when the accusation of decline was made about our previous president, it was dismissed by conservatives because they said there was no valid way of knowing if that was accurate observation. They chalked it up as sour grapes by liberals. So, if mere observation wasn’t valid for Trump, why would it be acceptable for Biden? I guess that’s just one of life’s little political mysteries.
Beyond that, conservative critics have a unique challenge in going after Biden….Trump. Apart from policy, every time they try to point a finger at Biden, there will be multiple examples of where Trump was similar or worse. Age and mental acuity is just one area. How they justify their criticism of Biden and not Trump will be amusing to watch. Of course, they will do it anyway, given they no longer consider open hypocrisy an issue.
Finally, it’s speculated that Trump could be the GOP’s presidential nominee for 2024. If so, he’ll be the same age as Biden currently. It will be interesting to see what excuses are made for why Trump is competent in his late 70s…especially given ample examples of questionable behavior during his presidency as a younger senior citizen.
He won’t resign midterm. That would reflect badly on him and the voters who put him in office. The country expects their presidents to serve out their terms. His cognitive and physical decline aren’t bad enough to force him out under the 25th Amendment. But he will not run for re-election. That’s his out–and sets up a free-for-all race to succeed him.
Joe has put in his prediction, which is a reasonable one.
Joe, let’s assume your scenario. What chance do you think Harris would have in such a situation?
Last time she had to compete for the presidency, she got less than 1 percent, I believe.
Who would be the top candidates?
I would assume Buttigieg and O’Rourke would have a decent chance. Nobody else comes to mind.
I think her chances would be good running as potentially the first black woman president–and the VP-ship gives her instant visibility and name recognition. Her odds ever better if she has substantive achievements to point to (voting rights, immigration–tall orders). Agree that Pete and Beta would run; maybe Warren and Klobuchar, and some governors also. Remember, the 2020 primary was cut short when everyone dropped out all at once around Super Tuesday. So there are still potential presidents-in-waiting. Also no VP in recent history has sailed to the nomination without a fight.
Some say Biden will leave in August 2021.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mike-lindell-claims-august-13-trump-reinstatement-2021-7
That guy is weird.
Indeed. Yet, there seems to be a swath of the base who agree with him. Some were even passing out a plan during CPAC that would oust Biden.
https://www.businessinsider.com/cpac-plan-reinstate-donald-trump-president-2021-7
That stuff is almost as crazy as the Russian conspiracy the Dems and the media were peddling for so long.
There’s a major difference…in the Russian case there was evidence that even the members of the FBI, DOJ and some conservative members of Congress gave credence to.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-panel-finds-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-us-election
Given the garbage that’s been regularly coming out of the FBI, DOJ and members of Congress, that’s hardly saying much.
There are other differences as well. The Russian nonsense was paid for as part of a political campaign, and was promoted by well-placed people.
Mr. Pillow dude’s stuff is just as crazy, it just doesn’t have the fake imprimatur of partisan liars who happen to have power.
Mr. Pillow is not at all an isolated case of raging insanity of his kind. There is a danger of like-minded people getting together and committing acts of violence if they don’t get their way. They actually got pretty far on January the 6th. They could very well do similar things again.
Yes, there is raging insanity all over the place — on the left and the right.
It’s amusing how people magnify the threat of the violence from the crazies on the other side, and minimize the threat of violence from the crazies on their own side. Even when they spent a summer burning cities, creating autonomous zones, promoting anarchy and assaulting the police.
I am more worried about the raging insanity and resulting acts of violence that is para-militarily organized and focuses on the Capitol with the specific aim of subverting the US government.
How many of the protestors in the Dec. 6 event were armed? I’m not asking that question to justify the thing in any way. It was a Bad Thing. But there’s a lot of wacky disinformation floating around, and I’m curious what you think is the truth here. How many were armed?
You need to listen to the testimony of the police who were horribly beaten and sprayed with toxic chemicals. A mob without fire arms can easily beat the living hell out of you and send you into toxic shock, resulting in severe trauma, including cardiac arrest and cerebral stroke.
QUOTE: Given the garbage that’s been regularly coming out of the FBI, DOJ and members of Congress, that’s hardly saying much.
Ooh, so information from these sources aren’t credible after full investigations were conducted? Yet, you gave the benefit of the doubt to Sydney Powell before an investigation of her claims could be conducted.
Crowhill said (in reference to Powell), A competent, experienced lawyer like Powell has been around the block a time or two, and she should know better than to fall for crazy theories and bad evidence. You don’t get to be someone like Sidney Powell by falling for stupid, unsupported claims…but Rubin is right to point out that there is an argument to be made in her favor simply on the basis of this sort of analysis. She would be very stupid to be making these claims if she couldn’t prove them. And she’s not stupid. At the very least we should admit that there might be something here, and that it should be investigated.”
Fast forward, Powell’s claims were dismissed in multiple courts and she has been sued. “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” Powell’s attorneys said in a court filing defending her against a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems. So, are we to conclude that those who believed Powell and gave her the benefit of the doubt are not reasonable people and thus their judgment shouldn’t be trusted?
That said, “we found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling,” Sen. Marco Rubio, acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement, directly refuting Trump’s repeated assertions that Russian interference was a “hoax” perpetrated by Democrats. Although the Senate and other government investigations didn’t yield proof of collusion, there was enough evidence to initiate “legal” investigations and those investigations yielded a number of credible and troubling outcomes.