Split Biden or Trump too old?

[robnisch]

Hell, Biden is 9 years older than me, I wish I had his stamina!

 

[steve_bank]

According to my eye doctor I qualify for a vision disability, but I have not applied for it yet.

I am not prone to typos. I have a hard time seeing typos even when they are flagged. Soeties I clik on the wrong word for the suggestions.

No, glasses do not help.

Spare me the condescending platitudes.

As to 'crossing time zones' that is exactly the point. The POTUS job as it is today is especially physically and mentally demanding.

Chronic stress is cumulative. You might find the before and after POTUS pictures that have been done on the net.

Biden is carrying a heavy stress load. His kid's legal problems, Ukraine, China, and a camping are at the top.

Stress like that is relentless. Trump's stress relief throughout his public life has been to take it out on others. Plenty of first hand accounts from WH staff.

In recent pictures Trump's facade is breaking down in his facial expressions.


The old WWII movie 12 O'clock High was a study in sustained stress written by not a combat bomber pilot but someone who was around the bomber crews. The militarily used it in leadership training. Everybody has a limit. Fool yourself and ignore it and you break down.

I am not a psychologist, but Trump is someone who could fail suddenly and catastrophically at the wrong time.

A manger I knew said it takes the same amount of time to complete destress as it does to build up stress. Another guy I knew said when he started slurring his words he knew he was pushing beyond his limit.


I see both Biden and Trump as risks from a health and endurance view.

 

[barbos]

Hell, Biden is 9 years older than me, I wish I had his stamina!

And he wishes he had a fraction of your mental abilities.

 

[barbos]

It wil be a tough campaign for Biden let alone a second term. Requires sustained stamina.

The dude just crossed eight time zones to attend the G20 and then went to Vietnam to negotiate another deal. How many people of any age could keep up with that?

What deal? That piece of shit called Vietnam a third world country, his handlers had to cut his press conference off after that.
The guy exhibits clear signs of senility, period.

Way to change the subject.

And what is the subject? The deal he signed? what deal that would be?
And speaking of time zones, that senile piece of shit did complain about need to go to bed while on stage.

 

[barbos]

Biden is supposedly carrying a heavy stress load. His kid's legal problems, Ukraine, China, and a camping are at the top.

Fixed it for you. And all of that stress is his own making.

 

[ZiprHead]

It wil be a tough campaign for Biden let alone a second term. Requires sustained stamina.

The dude just crossed eight time zones to attend the G20 and then went to Vietnam to negotiate another deal. How many people of any age could keep up with that?

What deal? That piece of shit called Vietnam a third world country, his handlers had to cut his press conference off after that.
The guy exhibits clear signs of senility, period.

Way to change the subject.

And what is the subject? The deal he signed? what deal that would be?
And speaking of time zones, that senile piece of shit did complain about need to go to bed while on stage.

Are you saying jet lag isn't real?

 

[steve_bank]

Biden is supposedly carrying a heavy stress load. His kid's legal problems, Ukraine, China, and a camping are at the top.

Fixed it for you. And all of that stress is his own making.

Like a war that was supposed to take weeks that is running into years?

Strange ain't it. Japan, Germny, and Italy are now part of the western liberal democracy systems. Now VN a former adversary wants a hedge against China.

As a great philosopher once said, ask not where the shit hole is, you are swimming in it.

 

[Toni]

The comments that claim Biden is senile are extremely ignorant. He may not be a frisky as a 40 year old, but he gets the job done.

He is certainly not as frisky as Boebert.

Considering what he's inherited from TFG, and considering all the challenges facing him and the world, it's amazing he's doing such a good job, yet his own supporters who can't think of anything but, OMG, he's 80.

80 is a significant age, but that's not really the issue. Him being 80 in 2023 was the issue for the 2020 election. The issue for the 2024 election is that he will be 85 in 2028, the last year of his second term. He is already showing major signs of ageing. Imagine him half a decade hence.

Interestingly enough, Jonathan Capeheart is ranting at this minute about how Democrats are doing a disservice to their own, by obsessing over Biden's age, despite how well he's managed his first term. Maybe we need to start using the phrase, "Democrats eat their own".

How much of it is really Biden as a leader and how much is it, as TomC said, his team, half of whom are Sandernistas?

They ARE still his team. That he chose. Perhaps as a compromise or perhaps part of the plan all along. With Joe, we get the (white, male) face of tradition, of someone who has been in the game for decades and plays it with a great deal of skill and finesse. And with intelligence, thought, patriotism, a genuine concern for the people of these United States and of the world. He's done what any good leader would do: filled his cabinet with people who bring to the table skills and ideas and points of view which are not his own but which help broaden his reach and broaden and deepen his platform and accomplish much more.

Obama was pretty much forced to be much more middle of the road that I believe he was/is. He was the very first black American to be POTUS and that was a seismic shift whose rumbles have given us Trump, unfortunately. Ugly but not worth skipping over Obama until we are all 'ready' to accept a black man. And who was there beside him? Joe Biden, who at the very least has given the appearance of a deep, abiding affection, respect and friendship with Obama. Willing to be second chair. Willing to do what was needed. It's hard not to respect that an elder statesman willingly, eagerly served as second to the first black person as POTUS, despite Obama's relative youth and inexperience.

Of course I wish Biden were 20 years younger. But he's not. Instead, his 20 years wiser than he was in his 60's, and has chosen to surround himself with progressives who can move forward while he serves as the traditional face: experienced white man with some white in his hair.

 

[TomC]

How much of it is really Biden as a leader and how much is it, as TomC said, his team, half of whom are Sandernistas

TomC did not say "half of whom are Sandernistas"

I supported Hillary because I thought she'd accomplish more of Sanders agenda than Sanders could. His agenda would have pushed the U.S. closer to the centrist zone.
Which is what we real conservatives want to see happen.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Are half his team Sanders' campaigners?

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[TV and credit cards]

If it must be between these two dodderers, it would serve them both to talk as little as possible.
He said as Biden gets ready to address the United Nations.
Hopefully Joe will just read the teleprompter. No "ya know" or "fact of the matter is". If you hear these, shit's about to go sideways.

 

[southernhybrid]

If it must be between these two dodderers, it would serve them both to talk as little as possible.
He said as Biden gets ready to address the United Nations.
Hopefully Joe will just read the teleprompter. No "ya know" or "fact of the matter is". If you hear these, shit's about to go sideways.

I listened to some of it, and I didn't think Joe sounded bad. A few times, he may have needed a few seconds to find the right word, but at least he didn't confuse himself with Obama and he didn't take about WWII coming in the near future like Trump did. Apparently, Trump doesn't realize that war ended a long time ago. It appears as if Trump is living in an altered reality, of his own making, while Biden is simply a person who has always had some issues expressing himself verbally.

Everyone knows that Biden gaffes and over came a severe problem with stuttering during his youth. So, he will never be the a great accomplished speaker but he usually get his point across without confusing the things that Trump does.

 

[Derec]

TomC did not say "half of whom are Sandernistas"

No, but you did praise his team.
Biden has disappointed me for caving to much to the left. Just yesterday he passed an executive order to implement a lite version of AOC's climate paramilitaries.
Biden takes executive action to launch Climate Corps
The problem with Biden these days is that he is very easily manipulated by those around him.

I supported Hillary because I thought she'd accomplish more of Sanders agenda than Sanders could. His agenda would have pushed the U.S. closer to the centrist zone.

Sanders a centrist?

 

[Derec]

Are half his team Sanders' campaigners?

The transition task forces were. Judging from his policies (like B³) that has carried over to the White House.
Biden And Sanders Announce Task Forces To Find Party Unity Over Policy

 

[Derec]

Obama was pretty much forced to be much more middle of the road that I believe he was/is.

And the country was better with a more moderate Obama. I disagree that he was as moderate as you portray him here. He did block the Dakota Access Pipeline even though it was already approved by the Corps of Engineers and almost finished anyway. He sent White House representatives to the Michael Brown funeral, which I think was a big mistake as it endorsed one side (and in my view, the wrong one) in a very controversial and divisive case.

He was the very first black American to be POTUS and that was a seismic shift whose rumbles have given us Trump, unfortunately.

I disagree that it was Obama being half-black that gave us Trump. After all, he was popular enough to win reelection soundly, carrying states like Florida and Ohio that Hillary lost and Biden could not claw back.

Hillary's incompetence as a candidate played the biggest role I think. Including her strategic mistake to take the "blue firewall" for granted. Race riots that were raging since 2014 and well into 2016 (Charlotte being the biggest in 2016, and it occurred less than two months before the election day) played a role too. Lastly, after eight years of presidency, the party in power is always on the back foot somewhat, no matter who is running. Vice presidents have the best record (Truman 1948, Bush 1992, Gore 2000 came very close) but Hillary wasn't Veep. Biden should have ran in 2016 and would have probably won, despite having had a much closer connection to the Obama White House than Hillary.

Ugly but not worth skipping over Obama until we are all 'ready' to accept a black man.

Who is "we" here? Obama did well with white people. That's also why I think Iowa and NH are right to be first, at least for Democrats. Obama showed that he could win in IA and come close in NH despite largely white electorate. Like it or not, Democratic voters in those two states are closer to the democratic profile of the general election electorate than Dems in SC, and winning in SC would not have carried the same cachet.

Of course I wish Biden were 20 years younger. But he's not. Instead, his 20 years wiser than he was in his 60's, and has chosen to surround himself with progressives who can move forward while he serves as the traditional face: experienced white man with some white in his hair.

So he is just a figurehead and the real power are the leftists (or as you call them, "progressives"). Which is what I am forever trying to convey with the LOTR analogy with King Theoden as Biden, Grima Wormtongue as AOC and Saruman as Bernie.

 

[Derec]

You seem afraid of Kamala Harris taking over.

In a way, yes. She is polling worse than even Biden against potential Republican candidates. So if she has to take over before the election, it would be big trouble. And a party should not enter a race with a candidate that is likely to have to cede to their running mate, either before or after the election. If there is a good chance your candidate cannot last until January 2029, it is time to replace him or her.

And yes, I do not like KH as a presidential candidate anyway. First of all, she was fairly moderate as AG and in Senate, but tried to run in the outer left lane with Sanders and Warren. She said that she wanted to ban fracking and offshore drilling, which would have been a great gift for Putin.

So, which is the real Kamala?

 

[Toni]

Obama was pretty much forced to be much more middle of the road that I believe he was/is.

And the country was better with a more moderate Obama. I disagree that he was as moderate as you portray him here. He did block the Dakota Access Pipeline even though it was already approved by the Corps of Engineers and almost finished anyway. He sent White House representatives to the Michael Brown funeral, which I think was a big mistake as it endorsed one side (and in my view, the wrong one) in a very controversial and divisive case.

He was the very first black American to be POTUS and that was a seismic shift whose rumbles have given us Trump, unfortunately.

I disagree that it was Obama being half-black that gave us Trump. After all, he was popular enough to win reelection soundly, carrying states like Florida and Ohio that Hillary lost and Biden could not claw back.

Hillary's incompetence as a candidate played the biggest role I think. Including her strategic mistake to take the "blue firewall" for granted. Race riots that were raging since 2014 and well into 2016 (Charlotte being the biggest in 2016, and it occurred less than two months before the election day) played a role too. Lastly, after eight years of presidency, the party in power is always on the back foot somewhat, no matter who is running. Vice presidents have the best record (Truman 1948, Bush 1992, Gore 2000 came very close) but Hillary wasn't Veep. Biden should have ran in 2016 and would have probably won, despite having had a much closer connection to the Obama White House than Hillary.

Ugly but not worth skipping over Obama until we are all 'ready' to accept a black man.

Who is "we" here? Obama did well with white people. That's also why I think Iowa and NH are right to be first, at least for Democrats. Obama showed that he could win in IA and come close in NH despite largely white electorate. Like it or not, Democratic voters in those two states are closer to the democratic profile of the general election electorate than Dems in SC, and winning in SC would not have carried the same cachet.

Of course I wish Biden were 20 years younger. But he's not. Instead, his 20 years wiser than he was in his 60's, and has chosen to surround himself with progressives who can move forward while he serves as the traditional face: experienced white man with some white in his hair.

So he is just a figurehead and the real power are the leftists (or as you call them, "progressives"). Which is what I am forever trying to convey with the LOTR analogy with King Theoden as Biden, Grima Wormtongue as AOC and Saruman as Bernie.

All presidents rely very very heavily on their staff and cabinet. Decent CEOs do as well. Which does not make them figure heads but effective leaders. Attempting to do everything yourself is as foolish and ineffective as attempting to plow and plant and harvest and mill and market and sell produce from 10000acres of land.

What an effective leader does is to assemble a team that shares a vision, is more than competent, dedicated, well informed and also willing to give push back and who can work independently to carry out the vision.

Trump’s buffoonery would have been of little consequence of he had a thing like a coherent plan—or competent staff. We should all be grateful they were so grossly incompetent that they failed to completely destroy the nation.

 

[bilby]

The problem with Biden these days is that he is very easily manipulated by those around him.

The problem with the right wing, since forever, is that they consider being influenced by others* to be a bad thing in a leader.

The essence of democracy is that it doesn't include an authoritarian dictator who imposes his will without regard for the opinions of others.

That you consider the virtue of "listening to people and changing your opinions on the basis of their advice" to be a detriment to a political leader's suitability, tells me that you're not really comfortable with democracy, and genuinely think that it's both better, and possible, to have an autocracy in which the autocrat does only what you want him to do.

That's not an option. You can choose between the left wing approach, in which weak leadership by people who change their positions based on the influences of other people, is seen as virtuous; Or the right wing approach, in which strong leadership by people who impose their own opinions regardless of any evidence that they should reconsider, is the virtuous course.

They're the only choices - do you want a leader who listens to you (but who also listens to everyone else, even people who disagree with you); Or a leader who listens to nobody, (particularly not you)?

Democracy is intended to eliminate strong leadership. That's it working as designed. Strong leadership is almost always a bad thing. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you want strong leadership, then democracy is counterproductive and you might as well just have a king.

Biden can be persuaded to change his mind based on the advice of people who have access to more detailed or accurate information than he has himself.

Trump cannot be persuaded to ever change his mind, no matter how stupid or wrong he is; He can, however, be steered into the belief that something he never considered at all was, in fact, his own new and brilliant idea.

The truly weak leader is the one who isn't easily manipulated, and who can only be manipulated by a very difficult process of pretending that the leader himself is the source of a wonderful new idea.

A truly strong leader is easy to manipulate - you just need to present facts that indicate he is in error, and just like that, he flip-flops to a totally new policy position.









*Of course, not including themselves

 

[Derec]

The problem with the right wing, since forever, is that they consider being influenced by others* to be a bad thing in a leader.

My point is not that. It was that we got a bait and switch - Biden ran as a moderate, but is governing as Bernie lite.

The essence of democracy is that it doesn't include an authoritarian dictator who imposes his will without regard for the opinions of others.

Then why is Biden doing so much stuff through executive order bypassing the Congress even when he knows that the executive order is illegal (as with the eviction moratorium)?

That you consider the virtue of "listening to people and changing your opinions on the basis of their advice" to be a detriment to a political leader's suitability, tells me that you're not really comfortable with democracy, and genuinely think that it's both better, and possible, to have an autocracy in which the autocrat does only what you want him to do.

I am not calling for autocracy. Quite the opposite. But Biden shifting drastically to the left is not base on "listening to their advice", it's about him being too weak to resist manipulation. Why isn't he listening to sound advice from the likes of Manchin? Why is he so easily manipulated by the left wing of the party?

It's not just Biden. Trump was the same. He ran as more of a moderate, and bamboozled many midwestern Dems into voting for him. Then he brought in people like Sessions. Only it stings more with Biden since I voted for Biden, and did not vote for Trump (the moderate spiel was more obviously bullshit with Trump).

That's not an option. You can choose between the left wing approach, in which weak leadership by people who change their positions based on the influences of other people, is seen as virtuous; Or the right wing approach, in which strong leadership by people who impose their own opinions regardless of any evidence that they should reconsider, is the virtuous course.

LMAO! As if the Left doesn't have authoritarians. Lenin, Stalin, etc., Ulbricht, Honecker, Castro, Guevara, Pol Pot, the Kim Dynasty, Allende, Chavez, Maduro. The list goes on.

They're the only choices - do you want a leader who listens to you (but who also listens to everyone else, even people who disagree with you); Or a leader who listens to nobody, (particularly not you)?

The leader should listen to people. But he should still have some sort of internal convictions and not be easily manipulated. And certainly not only to one side, like Biden is being pulled to the Left.

Democracy is intended to eliminate strong leadership. That's it working as designed. Strong leadership is almost always a bad thing. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you want strong leadership, then democracy is counterproductive and you might as well just have a king.

That's why we have Congress. And yet lefties decried Congress when it blocked Biden's Spendapalooza plan. The President is not supposed to do things like forgive $400 billion is student debt, or prohibit landlords to evict deadbeats, or establish a civilian climate corps by executive fiat.

Biden can be persuaded to change his mind based on the advice of people who have access to more detailed or accurate information than he has himself.

Or rather by ideologues.

A truly strong leader is easy to manipulate - you just need to present facts that indicate he is in error, and just like that, he flip-flops to a totally new policy position.

There is a difference between persuading and manipulating. I think Biden is being manipulated. And we are getting something we did not vote for.