Here’s the full 22-minute uncut interview of Joe Biden by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. It took place yesterday evening, and concentrated, of course, on Biden’s performance in his debate for Trump. Please weigh in below.
My short take: Stephanopoulos asked good, hard questions—no softballs. And Biden’s unscripted performance here was better than in the debate, but I’m still worried.
When asked whether he watched the debate on tape, Biden says he couldn’t remember. He says he was ill and “just had a bad night.” He also claims that Trump’s shouting, even with his mike shut off, threw Biden off. But then remember that Biden gave a barnburner teleprompted speech the very next day, and how could that be if he was ill? As for reports that he has a “bad day” often in private life as well, he replies by touting his accomplishments in a boilerplate recitation, and denies that his efforts in the past 3.5 years has cost him anything vis-à-vis his health.
Biden claims that his doctors say he’s fine, and that “he has a full neurological test every day”, which sounds dubious. Stephanopoulos asks, however, if Biden had taken a full cognitive test. Biden evades that question, saying that he “has a full cognitive test every day,” referring to his behavior in public. But that’s not an answer, and it’s curious if he really hasn’t HAD such a test, which could put many minds at ease Nevertheless, the President says he doesn’t want to have a full medical evaluation because “he’s already done it.” That’s clearly not the case: he’s referring to his “normal” behavior in public. But many of his answers are basically a campaign speech: assertions that he “put NATO together,” “shut Putin down,” “checkmated China” (???), “put together a South Pacific initiative,” and so on.
Biden vehemently asserts that he will defeat Trump in November. despite the polls that show otherwise. He adds that he got this same poll-based pushback in 2020, when he won. Ergo, he implies that the polls aren’t really a good prediction of what will happen, and it’s merely a “toss-up”. That may be the case, and no candidate ever admits that they’re really behind. He claims that a “pathological liar” like Trump simply can’t win, and that he knows of nobody “more qualified to be President and win this race than me.”
When Stephanopoulos notes that a group of Congresspeople are getting together to convince Biden to drop out of the race, Biden poo-poos that, claiming that all the people in Congress he knows have told him to stay in. (Biden looks disturbed at this point.) He reasserts that his dropping out “is not gonna happen,” and denies that his approval rating really is 36%.
In the end, yes, I think Biden did a good job in his first term. He was good on Ukraine vs. Russia, okay on Israel, not so good on immigration, decent on most other things, but lame on gender/sex issues (Title IX). I don’t hold him responsible for the downturn in our economy; but I think he certainly did better than Trump would have. Trump will be mired in trials and legal issues for the next few years, and I also think he’s mentally ill. So, as a “never Trumper” liberal, I’ll vote for whatever candidates the Democrats choose. But I’m still dubious about Biden, even after watching this interview. He was simply not sharp enough, and what’s the story with his voice? I do think he has a neurological problem that might impede his effectiveness as President. He needs to take a cognitive test and make the results public.
Despite that, and despite his defensiveness and clear reluctance to even consider dropping out of the election, I guess he’ll be the Democrat whose name is by the party box.
After the end of the debate, 23 minutes in, four ABC correspondents give their take during the last 8 minutes. None of them think that Biden did a good enough job to rehabilitate his reputation, and several say that he hasn’t taken the doubt among House Democrats seriously enough. None of the four are enthusiastic.
Biden’s self-confidence may hurt not just the party, but, come November, the country.
Here are two takes (excerpted). First, from the New York Times (archived here):
Mr. Biden’s performance in the 22-minute session with George Stephanopoulos was not viewed as disastrously as his debate against Mr. Trump eight days earlier. But while his most loyal supporters presumably found enough reassurance to stick with him, those who have turned against him or were on the verge of doing so did not seem comforted, and time is running out if the party is to change nominees, as some would like.
While Mr. Biden had a ruddier color to his face this time and looked calm and composed with his hands in his lap and legs crossed, he once again sounded hoarse and at times tentative, sometimes struggling to finish a sentence. He was dismissive about concerns about his health, denied that he was more frail and ducked questions about medical tests.
He took responsibility for his debate performance repeatedly — “nobody’s fault but mine” — but then blamed it on exhaustion and sickness and Mr. Trump “shouting” and distracting him. Even so, he indicated that he did not know whether he had actually watched a recording of the debate afterward. He said that he has a cognitive test every day because he is “running the world” and that he would only step aside as a candidate “if the Lord Almighty came down and said, ‘Joe, get out of the race.’”
Probably the one line that generated the most irritation among fellow Democrats was his response when Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Mr. Biden how he would feel in January if he loses to Mr. Trump and has to turn the White House back over to the former president. “I’ll feel as long as I gave it my all and I did the goodest job as I know I can do, that’s what this is about,” Mr. Biden replied.
Multiple Democrats expressed exasperation at that afterward, declaring that the election was not about earning a participation trophy but about stopping a convicted felon who tried to overturn an election he had lost, urged “termination” of the Constitution to return himself to power and vowed to devote his next term to exacting “retribution” on his adversaries. One House Democrat, who asked not to be identified for fear of repercussion, said that he hoped the Lord Almighty would be coming to talk with Mr. Biden soon.
And from this morning’s Free Press article by Eli Lake:
President Joe Biden, in his interview Friday night with ABC News, said many things. The polls had him in a dead heat with Donald Trump. Democratic Party leaders have urged him to stay in the race. America, under his leadership, has “checkmated” China.
He delivered these assessments with a gravel-voiced clarity missing from his disastrous debate performance on June 27. He was engaged and followed his train of thought to a conclusion. The problem was the substance of his answers were lacking. In fact, many of the things he said strained credulity.
Call it Biden’s alternative facts.
Let’s start with the polling. Biden told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, “All the pollsters I talk to tell me it’s a toss-up” between him and Donald Trump. It’s possible Biden has indeed spoken to pollsters who tell him the presidential race, after the debate, is 50-50. But the highest quality polls after the debate show Trump in a firm lead.
The New York Times/Siena College poll, for example, has Biden down six points among likely voters. A Wall Street Journal post-debate poll found 60 percent of likely voters either strongly or somewhat disapprove of Biden’s performance as president. CNN’s latest poll among American adults has Biden at 43 percent versus Trump at 49 percent.
Former senior adviser to President Barack Obama David Axelrod posted on X a more realistic assessment of Biden’s chances in the race on Friday evening: “The president is rightfully proud of his record. But he is dangerously out-of-touch with the concerns people have about his capacities moving forward and his standing in this race. Four years ago at this time, he was 10 points ahead of Trump. Today, he is six points behind.”
The other extraordinary answer Biden gave to Stephanopoulos was that Democratic Party leaders were urging him to stay in the race. In response to a question about whether he would consider abandoning his run for a second term if Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged him to withdraw, Biden said, “Every one of ’em. . . they all said I should stay in the race.” He said this was also true of James Clyburn, the former House majority whip from South Carolina who saved Biden’s campaign in 2020 in his home state.
In public remarks, however, two of these Democratic leaders have signaled a very different message for Biden. This week Clyburn said he would support a “mini-primary” before the Democratic convention at the end of August if Biden stepped aside. And Pelosi this week encouraged Biden to give an interview to serious journalists to prove he is capable of running for a second term. Then she added this knife-twist in an interview with MSNBC: “I think it’s a legitimate question to say, ‘Is this an episode or is this a condition?’ ”
Scanning the liberal press, I really couldn’t find a single op-ed saying that Biden did a good job and should forget about dropping out. Surely that tells you something about the mindset of liberals. Joe needs to go.
I watched the whole thing—all 22 minutes of it when it was aired here on the west coast. Stephanopoulos did a great job. He was gentle, but unrelenting, and the entirety of the interview was on Biden’s health and fitness to serve. The interviewed Biden was a better Biden than the debating Biden, but he still wasn’t good. If you compare Biden to himself, he was rather below his average self.
But I would submit that comparing Biden to Biden is the wrong comparison. The comparison should between Biden and a sharp, crisp, younger contender. When compared against a more youthful candidate, Biden fails utterly. There is a risk that frequent exposure will cause us to habituate to the new, impaired, Biden and that we will thereby lower our bar for what we will accept in a President. We need to be careful to compare Biden *not* to the new Biden, but to a youthful competitor who is sharp, crisp, animated, vigorous, and full of life.
“A sharp, crisp, younger contender.” I went back to watch the debates between Obama and Romney. Crisp. My country has a lot of problems, but one thing we have going for us is that the leaders of our political parties are in their 40s and 50s with all their faculties and tons of (some would say in the case of Trudeau far too much) energy. I think ~all of the conversation about whether Biden can win is misplaced (or at least getting ahead of itself). Isn’t the first question whether he could govern?
To answer your question, yes. I don’t think that he can, and certainly not for four more years.
Unfortunately, the top question is how to win over undecided swing state voters. And that group is swayed by personality, not policy. If the election were held next week, Trump would almost certainly win all the swing states and thus the election. And it seems unlikely that Biden can change that by November.
It’s not enough that Trump is awful, the Dems need to offer an appealing alternative. A frail octogenarian who has trouble speaking in complete sentences is not that.
I was troubled with the way he deferred to his god several times. But even so, even if the “Lord Almighty” asked him to step aside, he might agree to step aside.
The president needs to defer to his constituency, not to his god.
• • •
STEPHANOPOULOS: If you can be convinced that you cannot defeat Donald Trump, will you stand down?
BIDEN: (LAUGH) It depends on — on if the Lord Almighty comes down and tells me that, I might do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, if — I mean, on a more practical level, The Washington Post just reported in the last hour that Senator Mark Warner is — is assembling a group of senators together to try and convince you to stand down, because they don’t think you can win.
BIDEN: Well, Mark is a good man. We’ve never had — He also tried to get the nomination, too. Mark’s not — Mark and I have a different perspective. I respect him.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And if Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries and Nancy Pelosi come down and say, “We’re worried that if you stay in the race, we’re going to lose the House and the Senate,” how will you respond?
BIDEN: I — I’d go into detail with them. I’ve spoken to all of them in detail, including Jim Clyburn, every one of them. They all said I should stay in the race — stay in the race. No one said — none of the people said I should leave.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if they do?
BIDEN: Well, it’s, like, (LAUGH) they’re not going to do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re sure?
BIDEN: Well, yeah, I’m sure. Look. I mean, if the Lord Almighty came down and said, “Joe, get out of the race,” I’d get out of the race. The Lord Almighty’s not coming down. I mean, these hypotheticals, George, if, I mean, it’s all —
STEPHANOPOULOS: But — but it’s — it’s — it’s not that hypothetical anymore. I — I — I — I grant that the — they have not — requested a meeting, but it’s been reported.
BIDEN: But they — I met with them. I met with a lot of these people. I talk with them regularly. I had an hour conversation with Hakeem. I had more time — with Jim Clyburn. I spent time with many hours off and on in the last little bit with Chuck Schumer. It’s not like — I had all the governors — all the governors.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I agree that the Lord Almighty’s not going to come down, but if — if — if you are told reliably from your allies, from your friends and supporters in the Democratic Party in the House and the Senate that they’re concerned you’re going to lose the House and the Senate if you stay in, what will you do?
BIDEN: I’m not going to answer that question. It’s not going to happen.
• • •
Full transcript:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/05/us/politics/biden-interview-abc-transcript.html
+1
Bottom line is that Biden is an employee of the government, e.g.us and maybe “works” a six hour workday five days a week. Maybe.
He is unwilling to take a cognitive test and will not go before the WH Press Corpd for what would be a typical 30-60 minute unscripted press conference.
What happens when he is woken up at 3:00A due to a crisis? No note cards or teleprompter.
Who is making decisions? It isn’t him.
And he seemed to get over his cold and jet lag as soon as the debate was over; must be magic.
+1
That phone call scenario is frightening. As Jerry said, he’s “simply not sharp enough”. How much worse will he be at 3am?
The decision is for the USA, but the result will impact the whole world. We are all watching.
Franklin Foer of The Atlantic explains his take on President Biden’s lifelong coping strategies. His explanation suggests that convincing the President to drop out will be a very tough sell.
“ Every neutral observer regards Joe Biden’s debate performance as a historic debacle. To Joe Biden, it’s simply life repeating itself.
Since childhood, Biden has suffered recurrent episodes of brutal humiliation, when the world has mocked and dismissed him. On each occasion, Biden has stubbornly set out to prove his worth. Persistence became his coping mechanism, his effective antidote to humiliation. Triumph was always just a matter of summoning sufficient grit.” Etc. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/07/joe-biden-psychology-persistence-debate/678907/
I found that article very interesting, in that it may partially explain Biden’s recalcitrance to ceding the stage to someone else.
Combine that with a common problem for people with dementia: they don’t realize they have it.
Fascinating.
One of the contenders running for POTUS appears incapable of accepting defeat when faced with the reality of a loss, the other is incapable of accepting that he shouldn’t be running for the most powerful office on the planet because his cognitive capabilities are -demonstrably- compromised. The narcissism from both quarters is surreal.
Trump is “mentally ill” according to WEIT, well, Biden is (also) and palpably “mentally compromised”.
The worst part of a Trump win will be the mindless insanity we’ll have to live with via *woke* for four more years; the tribe will be embolden and it will be that much harder to push back against given the nature of the man in the White House. That, and the harm to environmental policy (The SCOTUS decision on Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council doesn’t help). Fingers crossed congress and our new POTUS (whoever that may be) can come together to drive Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and advance scalable nuclear reactor power. It’s one of the few -consensus driven- ways forward to combat global warming given the gridlock on legislative measures on climate.
And speaking about lies…
“Donald Trump is a liar. That we know. But one of the biggest lies being told right now is that the 46th president is fit for the office he currently holds. ” – The Free Press.
Article is here:
** Joe Biden’s Alternative Facts **
“Voters deserve a candidate who can compete with Donald Trump. Not one who looks increasingly out of touch with reality.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/joe-bidens-alternative-facts
It’s time to dismantle the 2 party system. The largest -and growing- political demographic are independents; this is a very+ good thing. Now, if only the Democrats permit “other candidates” to (fairly) participate in primaries. But no, that would be too democratic.
07/03/24: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre (where she continues to SPIN – and *not* in the same talented way Jen Psaki did) worth a watch – it was mostly about Biden’s cognitive state.
Thoughtful and thought provoking Rosemary. I’m not sure which party’s president will lead to more societal intolerance. Woke is faring very well in Biden’s ed department and in my bluer than blue state. We allow the castration and breast removal of teens as young as 13 even without parental permission but they can’t marry until they are 18 even with a court’s permission. Common sense has gone walkabout but we think we’re helping trans youth fulfill their dreams and that makes our righteous souls burst with pride … as it were.
Thank you Suzi.
Excellent point. I go back and forth on this. I.e. is it better to maintain the status quo (Biden and Co.) and keep pushing for reform leveraging data/science – multiple lawsuits currently underway – re: transitioning children.
Or is it better to have Trump in office and have bans imposed? Only to be overturned when the DEMS are back in office? Lasting change comes first from culture, and then policy and politics. Politics are downstream from culture. Bans have a way of backfiring and sponsoring fodder for political football.
ASIDE:
Nothing bothers me as much as the mutilation of children a la Biden and Co. Nothing. Maybe other issues should concern me more, but this issue is the worst for me. Coupled with this come the “insane” changes to Title IX and trans identified males permitted in female prisons. The most vulnerable of females.
Biden is not making policy. “Someone else is” – many others are. I can’t imagine Biden understands the implications and consequences of the revisions to Title IX.
Who is presiding?
Good question Rosemary. Likely a handful of people the President trusts to protect his legacy. On transchildren and underregulated physical medical interventions: the injustice of it makes me nauseous. Under the guise of compassion, we steal children’s futures before their brains are fully mature and their adult identities settled.
+1
I feel as you do. It’s nauseating. It’s a rejection of science, of puberty and ultimately, an assault on nature and reality.
Science and reality will win out, but it will take time. The legacy of this administration will not be a good one.
As I understand the regulation of health care in the United States, I don’t think the President, or even Congress, could ban nationwide what is deceptively called gender affirming care. That would be up to the states whose Depts of Health regulate doctors, hospitals, and clinics, and make the criminal law. (Somewhat similar to abortion.) The feds are trying bureaucratically to interpret the Civil Rights Act to compel doctors to castrate people upon their request, deeming that they have a right, even as minors, to have this done to them. (The right lives in the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender identification.). But even if a new Congress and Administration gutted the Civil Rights Act of all references to gender, this would not force the states to stop enabling or even requiring doctors to do it on request. It will still be up to the states to pass legislative bans as several have done.
The role of the federal government is in the federal judiciary up to the Supreme Court who will hear suits brought by trans activists trying to overturn bans that the states legislate. Obviously these bans are much easier for appeal courts to support if the Civil Rights Act no longer enshrines gender as a prohibited ground for discrimination, but that helps only the Republican states who have passed bans. It doesn’t help people at risk of medical misadventure in Democratic states where this mutilation will continue to be encouraged or mandated.
As with abortion, the prize is not Congress or directly the President. It’s getting (or keeping) the right ideological tenor on the Supreme Court to increase the chance that bans enacted by states will be upheld. For that you need the right President at the right time depending on how many years the various Justices likely have left in them. (And a Senate willing to confirm.)
+1
Thank you. Good points.
The revisions to Title IX can be reversed imnediately, via the executive. That will certainly help mitigate some of the damage.
The problem is the conflating of gender identity with sex. Sex ( biological ) must be explicity treated as a protected class. As it was ( implicitly) before the explosion of trans activism. Trans identified humans may need a separate set of protections based on identity, but without conflating gender idetity with sex.
Thinking of the rest of your points.
Do you have some sources on this : “We allow the castration and breast removal of teens as young as 13 even without parental permission” ?
It is a matter of current interest that in preparing its Standard of Care 8, WPATH was pressured by officials in the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services to remove recommendations for arbitrary age limits on gender-affirming surgery, which they did.
If a girl started to get breast development at age 9-10 and went on gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists (“puberty blockers”) she could be a candidate for mastectomy as early as 13.
In this interview, Dr. Blair Peters, a plastic surgeon at Oregon Health and Science University with a pediatric gender surgical practice, gives several minutes on the issues particular to adolescents beginning at 9:42.
https://x.com/4th_wavenow/status/1678065148936765440
The fawning interviewer doesn’t ask him the minimum age for a patient he would be willing to do genital surgery on but he does indicate that some adolescent patients will have never interacted with their genitals in a sexual sense before having surgery, not even masturbated. He talks elsewhere — Google him so two links don’t send this post to moderation — of “students at school” being almost miraculously cured of gender dysphoria through mastectomy. Surgery usually occurs later than both patient and surgeon would like because of long waiting lists and financial barriers related to insurance, not because of arbitrary age limits.
Observers being fair to both sides will often say that surgery is almost never done on children less than 18, which might well be true. They don’t cite evidence to prove that negative proposition, nor that the rarity under 18 is due to surgical taboo and not merely to rationing by queue.
Parental permission is necessary only if a state or provincial law says it is. In jurisdictions where a doctor is entitled to rely on the informed consent of any patient he deems possessing capacity to give that consent, permission of a parent/guardian is not necessary for any treatment, or for refusal. (Of course, if the parents didn’t want to pay out of pocket for expensive surgery this would be another matter.)
Tip of the iceberg of girls currently taking legal action against ‘doctors’ for child double mastectomies:
‘Layla Jane’ breast removal 13.
Chloe Cole, breast removal 15.
Kayla Lovdahl breast removal 13.
Luka Hein breast removal 16.
You can listen to Chloe’s powerful testimony to congress here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NBZtJZZRUeY
“In the three years ending in 2021, at least 776 mastectomies were performed in the United States on patients ages 13 to 17 with a gender dysphoria diagnosis, according to Komodo’s data analysis of insurance claims. This tally does not include procedures that were paid for out of pocket.” [https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/]
Yup a battle between the insane and the inane.
+1
Yes.
Yes, and you’ve made the choice exceptionally easy. Always vote for the inane over the insane.
Kamala should show integrity and cojones and call for the 25th. The Democrats ought to rally around and support this. She should replace Biden now, as he’s a national security risk. Cognitive competence varies by time of day for those in cognitive decline. We need a president who can respond on full throttle to an emergency after 8P at night, not one whose ability to do so is known to be compromised. Jill Biden should do what’s right for the country, like Kamala, and encourage her husband to step aside. Jill is the one whose brain has the cognitive lead in their couplet. He’d step down if she said so. It’s irresponsible of her and cruel (to him) not to. His legacy is at stake. He should be known as the president who knew when to step aside for the country. His legacy would go down in history books as a truly decent man of integrity if he did this in contrast to Trump’s push to retain power. The optics are great, and it’s the right thing to do for the country.
So far, Kamala, Jill, and Biden, sadly, are showing a lack of integrity on this matter.
Invoke the 25th, now! Though Kamala is a midwit partisan, that’s better than someone who truly can’t make decisions after dark. The patriotic versus partisan thing to do would be for her to lead on this matter. Do what’s best for the country and fulfill her duty as VP, even if it makes the Biden’s hate her. If she did that, the likelihood that she’d have a chance at beating Trump in the race would rise substantially. She’d possibly even win my vote, and I despise her DEI ethos. That said, Michelle Obama would have a good shot of beating Trump, and there are others that I believe would, too.
Pence was a better VP. Because Trump is out there and some Republicans are true conservatives, like Pence, there was enough distance between Pence and Trump for Pence to defy him to do what’s right. I don’t believe Kamala has it in her. So, not only do we have a derelict president, our VP is useless. I’ll be thinking a lot more about VPs in elections the rest of my life. That office should be filled with someone capable, like Pence, of doing what’s right for the country versus their relationship with the president and his base.
Harris invoke the 25th?
Not going to happen.
She’s too preoccupied with “what can be… unburdened by what has been”.
Couldn’t resist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X075waqdTqg
(she’s -also- not qualified to be POTUS, a DEI pick, but at least, she’s unburdened)
+1
Hahahah 🙂
Yes, I know you are right. If only she could unburden herself of herself and do the right thing!!!!!
They can’t.
The core of the democratic party is solidly tribal. They -and she- can’t help themselves. They will scramble over each other to fall off a cliff “for the party”, taking a good half of America’s voters with them.
We desperately need a 3rd party, and while Trump is (well, repulsive – I cannot abide his lies), that wing of the republican party is drawing more of the middle class and POC – it’s well worth our time to try to understand why.
Batya’s book may be a start:
“Second Class: How the Elites Betrayed America’s Working Men and Women”
https://www.amazon.com/Second-Class-Betrayed-Americas-Working/dp/1641773618
Yep. And while I won’t say it aloud IRL in Boston, I’m likelier to vote for Trump than I’ve ever been. I’ve been saying I’ll simply not vote if the ticket is Trump and Biden. But unless Trump does something to change my mind, I now favor him. This feels like a deep, dark, dirty secret I must hide even from myself, yet it is the truth. I now part ways with Ceiling Cat in the truthiest truth parts of me on this matter.
I think Biden lost a lot of the moderate voters he had in 2020 (including me), and, like me, they won’t say it right now. He’s overestimating the persuasiveness of “Trump will end our democracy.” I, for one, no longer believe that.
P.S. I like Batya!
Roz,
I don’t seem to be able to respond to your latest comment re: voting.
But. Hey.
+1
Yes, Batya is smart and likable.
And. I too do not believe that Trump will “end our democracy”. I refuse to be terrified by rubbish.
Rosemary, I don’t think anyone thinks Trump himself will end our democracy. If it’s going to be done — and it has already been partly done — it’s going to be done by the people he allowed on the Supreme Court, and by the political and religious extremists behind him, who are now more brazenly coming out from their cockroach breeding lairs.
You have heard about the “2025 project”, no? Or if you have, you don’t think it’s true or that Trump isn’t planning on implementing it? If you’re not terrified by what the Heritage Foundation wants to implement if Trump becomes POTUS again, then you’re simply not a fan of democracy, human rights, health care, the environment, or the separation of church and state.
Jon,
I don’t seem to be able to respond directly to your comment, so have to do it this way, by responding to my own comment.
Under Biden we’ve had millions streaming across the border – unchecked; we can and should support immigration, but not this way. Recently, some 50 individuals who entered across the southern border were affiliated with ISIS. “ICE Reportedly Searching for 50 Migrants Smuggled by ‘ISIS-Affiliated Human Smuggling Network’” – https://homeland.house.gov/2024/06/26/chairman-green-on-reports-of-isis-connected-smuggling-network-exploiting-the-border-theres-literally-no-one-president-biden-wont-turn-away/
Under Biden we have 2 serious wars (I’m not blaming Biden for these, but it is undeniable that both Putin and Hamas thought fit to invade/attack under Biden and not Trump – why? – I believe the weak exit from Afghanistan made its mark)
Under Biden, Title IX has been revised. Sex is now conflated with gender. Male identified persons are in female prisons, children are being mutilated; children who cannot decide what they should have for dinner (ice cream?) are being trusted (even encouraged) to make irreversible changes to their bodies. Males are in female sports and the list goes on. The science is on my side on this issue, yet, the party of science has ditched science and has dug in.
Under Biden, DEI took wings. Fortunately, it is -currently- taking a beating, but DEI needs to die – disappear. Most schools and elite academia are still entrenched in the philosophy. The consequences will have a lasting (chronic) impact on our republic. The loss of excellence and competence matters, in a very real way. A society cannot function underwritten by mediocrity.
Under Biden our exit from Afghanistan was horrendous. You can argue that he was left with no choice (some validity), but that would be -largely- a falsehood. He did have a choice, a strategic thoughtful withdrawal was imperative, keeping Bagram Air Base was imperative. We lost 13 of our best during that withdrawal and many many faithful Afghans who had been our allies. Afghan women have suffered enormously subsequent to the withdrawal. This matters.
Iran and Iranian proxies have been emboldened under Biden. We could discuss why, but I’ll make the point and leave it there. “Administration has emboldened Iran and its proxies, US strategy must shift”. https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/4253825-administration-has-emboldened-iran-and-its-proxies-us-strategy-must-shift/
The people Trump “allowed” (they were appointed by Trump and voted in by the Senate) on the supreme court are not buffoons, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett may live by a philosophy that many Americans (including myself) may not align with – not entirely, but these justices – I have no doubt – love our nation and serve just as dutifully as the liberal justices serve. We need to stop making boogeymen out of the opposition. We can fight for what we believe in -passionately- without demonizing fellow Americans. I don’t share your sentiment about SCOTUS. Yes, some decisions have been disappointing, and others have been fair/moderate. I’m willing (as time permits) to debate those decision to demonstrate my point if you wish to.
The comment about religious extremism is misplaced, the gravest threats we face in the context of religious extremism -currently- are from Islamic extremists, not Christian extremists. Yes, of course, all forms of fundamentalism are problematic, albeit the threat posed by Islamism (vs moderate Islam) is palpable. Antisemitism is on the rise, (a 400% increase I believe) and today, it comes (mostly) from the left, not the right. The burning of American flags (yes, constitutionally protected), the intimidation of jews (“from the river to the sea”), cries of “death to America” and “Allāhu ʾakbar” come -mostly- from the left, not the right.
I’m sure there are folk Trump will appoint (if he wins) who will be utterly distasteful and some may be extreme, however, we had four years of Trump and we survived. Some would even argue life was better for them under Trump, and we got the Abraham accords from Trump. He was also right about the border and the wall sans separating families. And, it is a plus that he seems to know what a woman is (yes, that was a bit of snark, but it does matter). I won’t vote for Trump, but I will -also- be hard pressed to vote for Biden.
It’s painful that our great nation cannot produce better leading candidates, and this goes to the entrenched nature of the 2-party system. It’s deeply sad.
Mark,
Yes, I must hate democracy because I don’t think as you do. This has to be the case. It must be true.
Also, I must also NOT be a fan of the environment and conservation despite un-ending my life to live in rural Africa and work with indigenous communities to protect iconic mega fauna.
And no, I am not terrified and you must be a Democrat.
Rosemary, if Trump wins, Project 25 will gut the federal government and put in place loyalists. They will proceed to change election rules so that only Republicans win. Trump has said that he will have opponents arrested and tried in military tribunals. The Supreme Court just gave him the power to do that. He will use the military to round up anybody deemed undesirable and put them in concentration camps. He has said all this out loud.
Listen to everything they’re saying out loud: This is “the second revolution”, and resistance will be met with violence. “It will only be bloodless if the Left allows it to be.”
It would be foolish to not take them at their word.
Phil,
Wasn’t Trump tried and convicted in NY by Biden’s DOJ? For a contrived offense? Are you saying Trump will do the same -or similar- thing if he gets elected?
Yes, he may.
“New Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg pledges to focus on Trump investigations” Alvin Bragg, is a democrat, ran and was elected Manhattan’s DA based on his “promises” to get Trump. Sounds very much like lawfare to me. Are we afraid that this type of banana republic style politics might have consequences? Sure, they might.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/20/politics/bragg-new-york-trump/index.html
The NY trial should never have seen the light of day. The democrats -of course- overreached, predictable and unfortunate.
I do not feel the same about the Jan 6th charges. I believe Trump should be taken to task on Jan 6th acts.
And no, the SCOTUS decision dose not grant Trump absolutely immunity from any and all acts, it grants him (and any president) absolute and presumptive (subject to interpretation) immunity from official acts – acts that he performs in an official capacity and grants him (and any president) no immunity from personal acts – acts carried out in a personal capacity. So, while I don’t have the time to dig into this too deeply, here is the majority opinion, it needs to be read:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Trump’s acts on Jan 6th were immoral. This does not imply that they were all illegal or criminal. SCOTUS punted the interpretation of many -though not all- of these acts back to the DC circuit court of appeals – to be decided subject to the majority decision. A decision that (again, I repeat) grants the president absolute (or core) immunity from certain acts carried out under an official capacity, and presumptive immunity (meaning the act(s) is subject to interpretation) for other acts carried out under an official capacity and no immunity for acts carried out in a personal capacity.
Judge Tanya Chutkan (DC circuit court of appeals, and no Trump fan) will interpret the charges (those punted by SCOTUS) related to Jan 6th subject to the SCOTUS decision, and there’s no doubt she’ll find that Trump can be prosecuted for some of the activities related to Jan 6, though not for all.
Can Obama be prosecuted for drone-striking Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen and a terrorist? No, because though it was murder in the literal sense, it was in furtherance of US interest. Anwar al-Awlaki was a terrorist. If there is no core (absolute) immunity for such acts, the president (any president) cannot preside effectively. This was an act ordered by Obama under an official capacity in the interest of the US – it has absolute (core) immunity. If a president (any president) did not have core immunity (for certain acts) he cannot serve effectively.
Can Trump be prosecuted if he -say- killed a maid in the white house? Yes, he can, because such an act (whether committed in official capacity or not) does not further the interests of the United States nor the constitution. So no, Trump cannot order Seal Team VI to kill his political opponent unless the opponent is trying to -say- nuke the USA. It is also highly unlikely that Seal Team VI would carry out such an order.
As for Project 25 – I’ll read up on it. Thanks for the tip.
And no one is going to end up in a concentration camp.
I remain unterrified.
Rosemary,
You still didn’t answer my question. Do you know about Project 2025, or not? And if you do, and you approve, let me know so I can stop wasting my time with you.
Yes, I’m a proud Democrat, what of it? Is your presumption supposed to be an insult? Strange.
Coming back to this thread after attending a family gathering…
Anyone who thinks Trump is some kind of preferred alternative to Biden, or even just a faintly acceptable candidate for U.S. president…
Well, if it quacks & waddles like a Russian asset — well then, it is a de facto Russian asset.
Jon,
Make an argument:
Quote:
“Anyone who thinks Trump is some kind of preferred alternative to Biden, or even just a faintly acceptable candidate for U.S. president…
Well, if it quacks & waddles like a Russian asset — well then, it is a de facto Russian asset.”
^^^ this is not an argument.
Steel man your case.
MSNBC spent 4 years telling us that Trump was a Russian asset. Turns out he wasn’t. And today, it appears that anyone who leans to voting for Trump (note* I am not voting for Trump) is a “Russian asset”.
This manner of polemic serves no purpose other than to alienate your fellow Americans – surely that’s not your intent? There’s also this: the American people (and I) are no longer moved by the “insult”.
ASIDE
++++
Biden may be suffering from Parkinson’s (The Free Press reported this AM). This issue alone should make him less preferable to Comrade Orange.
https://www.thefp.com/p/why-did-parkinsons-doctor-visit-white-house
Quote:
“It is also incumbent on the administration to explain Cannard’s multiple visits. If this neurologist has diagnosed and is treating Biden for a form of Parkinsonism—and this has been covered up—that’s a medical and political scandal. If his doctors believe he has this disease and are failing to inform and treat him, that is shocking malpractice. (House Republicans have already requested an interview with O’Connor.)
And let’s say Cannard is just an old-fashioned doctor who makes house calls to the White House to see patients other than the president. If that’s true, the public needs to know this, too.
Biden may say there is no necessity for him to get that comprehensive evaluation. But he’s wrong. The American people deserve to know what’s going on with the president.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rosemary,
I wasn’t making an “argument” — obviously. I wasn’t trying to change anyone’s mind. I was simply stating a specific opinion, for the record. A “vote” in the commons, if you will.
Your opinions (or arguments) to the contrary are not persuasive to me. But there are just so many hours in a day for an argument, and no more. You seem to have more time on your hands for arguments than I do.
Jon, again, an insult. Why? The polemic is not productive.
I probably have far less time than you do, but I take people seriously when they engage and my responses reflect that seriousness. I take the time (or make the time) to respect responses.
I’ll leave it there.
+2
The New York Post says, “George Stephanopoulos, former Bill Clinton adviser and the ultimate Democratic insider, held an intervention masquerading as an interview Friday night.”
Ha! A bit unfair (some of the questions were tough, good) but witty.
Watch a few minutes of Biden’s 2020 debate against Trump and draw your own conclusions:
https://www.youtube.com/live/wW1lY5jFNcQ?si=xn03u9-oI_0QGsFu
I think Biden is confident in his own ability, but that says nothing. I’m not suggesting that Biden has a personality defect (If I was discussing his opponent I might) but, as I understand it, it is part of the people with personality defects can’t see it in themselves.
I rather suspect that, if elected, Biden would probably be as effective as he was in his first term. If there was some minor cognitive impairment, then he would have advisors to help. If it got severe, he could hand over to the VP. The fact that he clearly looks frail should not be an issue. But that isn’t the point. I think your country, and the world at large, (I’m in the UK) could be severely damaged by a Trump Presidency. Biden might think that it is a battle between him and Trump. It isn’t; it is a battle for the future of the free world, and, fair or not, the perception of Biden’s failing health is clearly having an impact, and might well cost him the election. He owes it to his country, and the wider world, to withdraw and allow another candidate to take his place.
Context:
-If Biden is the nominee, running against Trump, I would not hesitate to hold my nose and vote for Biden (actually — voting against Trump).
– From the day Biden was elected, I thought he would be too old now to run again and did not want him to run again.
– If Biden runs and wins (unlikely), I would be willing to bet a significant amount that he is NOT still president on Jan. 31, 2028. I think the chances that he dies before then, or becomes so incapacitated that he is patently unable to continue as president, would be well above 50/50.
OK. Re: the interview.
I thought it was cringeworthy. Hard to watch. Here was the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES diminished to answering questions on national TV about his mental capacity. This was NOT the kind of interview I was expecting, or hoped for. I thought Biden would be asked substantive questions about national and world issues. I thought he would have the opportunity to SHOW EVERYONE his mental fitness for the office, rather than TELLING us that he is mentally fit. The interview was a major disappointment in that regard, and I seriously doubt it did anything to reassure those of us who are skeptical of his fitness.
Obviously I have no special insight into what the Dems are going to do. But again, as someone who gambles regularly, I would be willing to bet that Biden is not the nominee two weeks from now. (But I should also acknowledge that I didn’t think Trump would run again — so my track record is less than sterling)
+1
When Biden was elected in 2020, I thought that he was just there to beat Trump and thought for sure they would push him out over his health in the first year.
He could gracefully retire, citing his age. But it appears that’s not going to happen.
I wonder about big Dem donors. Are any of them going to hold back funds?
“Hello Joe! This is the Lord Almighty. You requested my appearance to confirm your decision. Here I am. Time to be magnanimous and step aside.”
Maybe he will have a dream like that. Or whatever response people who pray believe they receive. I didn’t want to believe it about his condition, but the truth must be revealed to save our democracy. It isn’t just his age, he seems frail and slow.
+1
“Maybe he will have a dream like that.”
Maybe he will. But the key question is whether he will remember it in the morning.
I was not reassured by the interview at all. I think the slight improvement in performance is completely explained by time of day, sitting, it being brief, and facing a known sympathetic interview host. Pres. Biden dodged and deflected a bit, had his own ‘facts’, and kept bringing up his past record (mostly good) and how wretched his opponent is. Those aren’t the current questions. The current questions are about the future. The current questions are not about Biden vs. Trump but about Biden or another Democrat. Pres. Biden does not seem up to four more years or defeating Trump. His answer to the question of how he will feel if Trump wins was horrifying. Having done your best is NOT all that matters for our country or the world. He is committing the same final massive error as Justice Ginsberg, having an overblown ego.
With respect to being ill before the debate, I expect he was, but a President has to travel and meet with thousands of people continually, many of whom will undoubtably expose them to pathogens and thus a very robust immune system is a requirement for the job. At 81, one’s immune system is no where near what it once was.
No other Democrat has been given the stage to espouse what their policies would be (probably many identical to Pres. Biden’s) or to demonstrate their abilities to face down Trump. Those willing to take on the challenge need to be allowed to begin campaigning now.
+1
I think that the South Pacific agreement is a reference to the AUKUS pact.
As for whether Biden should drop out, I guess the question I have is who would replace him?
I am personally of the opinion that having Trump on the Republican ticket removes the need of the Democrats to cater to “the base”, those who would vote for a half-eaten plate of spaghetti before they voted for Trump. There’s a thought that low enthusiasm among the young, the far lefties, and the DEI/ACAB/BDS crowd would get them to stay home or protest vote for Jill Stein. But giving Trump another four years and another chance at Supreme Court nominations should, with the proper PR firm, put an end to that.
My question is who would appeal to enough of the Libertarians and NeverTrumpers to get them to vote for him/her rather than stay home or flush their vote down the shitter on a third party candidate. Nikki Haley got 15% of the GOP vote even after she dropped out. That ain’t nothing. But you throw someone toxic (to that 15%) into the race and those are wasted votes. Kamala is a hard no. Warren is a hard no. Bernie is a hard no. Booker is a likely no. Newsom is a likely no. Whitmer is a hmmm-maybe. Michele Obama is a hmmm-maybe, but she almost certainly wouldn’t run despite the fantasies people have about that. Michael Bennet would be my pick, though he has the brand recognition of Moxie Cola.
I am, by the way, not certain that Biden cannot win against Trump. We forget how Trump, like a gun to the head, is a great motivator.
If we are to trust the polls (today), Biden will lose to Trump.
AUKUS and also he did a little reported confab between South Pac nations last year with all the “coral reefs with flags” as I affectionately put it once, at the White House. Even the Cook Islands came!
This was to counter increasing Chinese influence in the area.
That is a big but neglected story outside the US. (China, not the Cook Islands!)
I agree with your list, Jon. Hard no on all those people.
I keep hoping for Newsome. I know almost nothing about him other than he is gorgeous on TV and that worked for Reagan. And he’d destroy Trump in any one on one.
Just…. no… Kamala.
D.A.
NYC
https://democracychronicles.org/author/david-anderson/
ps I’d like to be charitable but the DEI/ACAB/BDS crowd are too unpredictable and low-IQ to bother about when it comes to picking a president. They are also distributed and distributed mainly in places where Dems will win anyway. So forget them. I try to in my every day life. 🙂
Few actually vote in real life and both sides have their crazy extremes.
As a Californian I’m not enchanted with Gov. Newsom. He is extremely ‘woke’ (using that term as shorthand). He conspicuously violated his own harsh Covid-19 restrictions; while professors were given two hours to vacate their offices and labs at CSU, and most restaurant employees were suddenly out of work, Newsom went to an indoor lunch at The French Laundry (~$350/person) and his kids were able to return to in-person classes at private school long before most of California’s children could do so in public schools. His first marriage was to Kimberly Guilfoyle. He has been unable to manage or solve the homelessness crisis. He has continued to support the high speed rail boondoggle. He has dyslexia, meaning he reads slowly (apparently often 3X), but does have an incredible memory once he has done that. He’s just too ‘slick’. I don’t think he would do well in the essential swing states or be able to attract many non-MAGA Republicans. My choice would be Amy Klobuchar, but Gretchen Whitmer is a fine choice as well.
When Biden grants interviews, he gets to pick the time of day. I’m going to go way out on a limb here and guess that the interview ended by 5 pm.
Biden’s debate performance gave me the idea for this cartoon. If only someone could convince this emperor that his clothing is inadequate.
+1
Cool cartoon. Thanks.
The problem is the media (the left leaning media in this context), first, they kept insisting that Biden was fine – “he has plenty of clothes on” – did this for at least a couple years while knowing he wasn’t ok – telling us not to believe our eyes. Now, they want him gone, the about-turn immediately after the debate was startling; “look, he has no clothes!”.
The media needs to convince the emperor that he has no clothes. Enough pressure by the media and the polls will continue to falter; at some point, a critical threshold will be reached.
Consider Joe 2020 vs today.
Now forward the tape 4 years in the future.
And consider age related decline is non linear.
Nassim Taleb quoted a 33% chance of death, I predict higher if Parkinsons/etc is involved.
It is a worrying picture less of November, but the next 4 years.
And I repeat my mantra: NO KAMALA.
D.A.
NYC
https://democracychronicles.org/author/david-anderson/
+1
Could Biden and Harris swap roles, with her running for President and he as her vice-president? They could tout his experience and accomplishments without his potential liabilities being an issue.
I was sixteen years old when JFK was elected president. I recall how proud I was to have a young leader who started us on our trip to the moon, and who stopped us from getting into a nuclear war. I’m a values voter, and will vote for whichever Democrat represents my values, but I’d like Biden to pass the torch to another young leader, and offer the country the same optimism that I was offered way back when.
I see your point Tom. I feel the same about the 1990s – when I was the same age then as you probably were in the 1960s.
It is difficult to separate our age/cohort effects from actual real life and progress.
I’m not doubting you – born in 1971 I think the 60s were great – I can appreciate your honesty, but “age bias” is s/t I’ve noticed in myself as I lurch into my 50s.
best
D.A.
NYC
Thanks for the response, David. I am purposely trying not to present a case that shows an age bias, but seeing an outcome that reinforces a more youthful, vigorous viewpoint. I know Biden can get the job done. However, I also think that turning the keys to the White House over to a younger driver will give him or her the confidence to also do the job equally well, now and into the future. Let’s both hope we’re left with a better country come November.
It is interesting to watch the post-debate debate. Many on the left have now moved into the same territory that many on the right found themselves in 2016: I know he is not qualified for the job, but the other side scares me. And unlike THOSE people, MY fears are justified.
Most of us are fortunate in an unfortunate way. Very few states are in play; most of our votes don’t matter other than as performance of a civic duty. At least that relieves me of fretting. A vote for one guy unnecessarily pads his total; a vote for the other is futile. A vote for Kennedy won’t swing the outcome either way. All three are flawed in some ways, but one strikes me as far less notably flawed than the others.
Good luck trying to attract independents with the names being tossed about. Newsome is a nonstarter. Whitmer struck many as a tad authoritarian and micromanaging during the pandemic. Klobuchar seems far more talented than her public persona suggests; alas, we are superficial like that. Joe Manchin would cinch the center; as would somebody like Susan Collins from the right. Too bad at least half the voters on each side are in a fighting mood and want a partisan brawler. Andy Beshear from Kentucky is the most popular governor in the country. A Democrat in one of the Trumpiest states in America. Poor Andy. His pale white skin and semi-Southern roots will keep him on the back of the Democrat’s candidate bus. Too bad, really, as the guy does empathy quite well, and he is damned near impossible to dislike. Then again, he’s not well tested because the Republican super majority in the state legislature runs everything, to include overriding all Beshear’s vetoes. Josh Shapiro from PA is similarly untried as an executive, but he seems intriguing. Would today’s Democratic party nominate a Jew?
Did anyone mention Biden bragging that he has stopped Putin? At a moment when Putin keeps grabbing more land and murdering people by the thousands, and actually feels so confident in his victory that he has stopped pretending that he wants negotiations.
While Trump has a worrying attitude, Biden is a gift to Putin that keeps giving. Lacking the cognitive ability to set his foreign policy, the US President listens to advisors that are strongly pro-Russian, namely, William Burns and Jake Sullivan. As a result, the USA under Biden pretends to help Ukraine but deliberately gives it always too little, making sure that Ukraine will lose but only after its defenders have been exterminated and its land has been scorched. Last year’s Ukrainian counteroffensive failed because Russia had total advantage in the air; a year later, Ukraine hasn’t yet received a single F-16. Need I say that this is unspeakably cruel? Maybe a frank abandonment would have been the lesser evil.
After Russia, the USA has done most to destroy Ukraine – I have no idea why. In 1994, Pres. Clinton talked Ukraine into surrendering its nuclear arsenal in exchange for safety promises that turned out false (the Budapest Memorandum). In 2008, Pres. Bush decided to keep Ukraine out of NATO. In 2014, Pres. Obama told Ukraine not to resist when Russia invaded Crimea, and then refused to give arms or to implement meaningful sanctions. Biden has continued this policy of appeasement, rightly compared to Munich. Unfortunately, it enjoys a wide public support. The two parties are in a race to the bottom about who will do less for Ukraine. Here, I have been bullied and gaslighted for commenting that the USA should stand against Putin.
Real shame about Ukraine. Obama started appeasing Russia and Biden isn’t much better.
I had an epiphany the other day while thinking about the UK General Election, and I guess it rolls over to the American Presidential Election (and possibly beyond).
For whatever reason (I blame the media but YMMV) ‘big’ elections are all about personalities, with performance of political duties a distant second. As a consequence it is easy to criticise Trump as an unpleasant person… yet he didn’t bring an end to democracy in his first term. Similarly the debate about Biden is all about his health, not his past record.
I’m afraid that reporting ‘personalities’ makes click bait headlines easy. Too easy.
Personality does matter (Trump tried to become a dictator because of his!). But yes, priorities are are wrong. The best case against Trump was always that he was not remotely qualified for the job (no prior experience, his sheer ignorance, dark triad personality traits, laziness, …).
What is so overrated is likeability, and there is also an awful focus on life stories (which are often made up, usually irrelevant, and sometimes should make you vote against someone if you are rational).
I can’t find fault with Trump’s personality from that perspective. He has been popular throughout his life (“ladies’ man” in high school), and no less with Democrats than with Republicans before he started talking about Obama’s faked birth certificate. Even those who hate him find him entertaining, can laugh at his jokes and re-use his phrases. Republicans who once considered him a joke now grovel before him, which leads to my last point: his behavior does not harm him. That is why it’s wrong to classify him as disabled or mentally ill, since such people actually suffer and tend to destroy their relationships due to their illnesses.
The internet is rife with rumors of the impending resignation of Biden. Will it be tomorrow? (That’s 08 July, 2024) Or maybe next week. Let’s put the question of exactly when aside for the moment. At this time, it does seem almost certain that pressure to resign is in the offing. Attempts at rehabilitation via interviews, especially with Stephanopoulos. A broadcaster from a Philadelphia station has been fired allegedly due to her revelation that the White House had a list of prepared questions for the spontaneous interview.
As far as I am concerned, Biden’s symptoms had emerged by 2020. They are the result of progressive nerve cell death. Whether you identify the symptoms as Alzheimer’s, frontoparietal, or just plain dementia, the behavior of the afflicted will continue to deteriorate. I have seen claims that Biden is suffering from Parkinson’s disease (PD). The major symptom of PD is an inability to initiate movement. Biden does not exhibit the movement disorders (dyskinesias) common to PD.
PD is caused by a lack of a neurotransmitter or neuromodulator known as dopamine. Yes, dopamine is often called the pleasure hormone, but it has other duties. Areas of the brain called the basal ganglia need dopamine to activate nerve cells that will allow motor patterns to occur. The root cause of PD is cell death in the Substantia Nigra, a region of the brain where dopamine is synthesized. However, there is an effective, if temporary, treatment for PD. The patient receives a shot of L Dopa, the precursor of dopamine. A surge of dopamine relieves PD symptoms. This may not last for more than a half hour to an hour. However, if Biden had PD, some L Dopa should have boosted his lackluster debate performance to something like “normal” behavior.
As I noted, dementia symptoms are progressive. In Biden’s case, his erratic behavior has been increasingly difficult to ignore. At the G7 meeting, Biden just wanders off as the leaders of this decaying organization line up for a photo shoot. The diminutive Giorgia Meloni had to take Biden by the arm and steer him back into the center of the group. Then we have Joe’s vehement statement that he has known Putin for forty years. Over and above his debate performance we have too many incidents to disregard.
This brings us back to the question of what will happen and when. If Biden cancels his presidential run then how will he be able to continue as president? It seems to me that the end of Biden’s campaign means the end of his presidency. It also means the ascendancy of Kamala Harris, aka Kama Sutra, NATO is slated to meet in Washington this week. NATO is already in disarray so Biden’s elimination would likely lead to panic. I’ll be interested to see if Turkiye shows up. Biden will likely stay on for another week. BTW, while I think that Biden’s removal is the most likely of numerous scenarios, it is possible he will retain his presidency and candidacy, simply because there is no realistic alternative.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/coming
When I first glanced at that comic, I wondered whether it was Trump’s or Biden’s disconnected speaking style which was being parodied. Answer: neither. Sign of the times.