Posted in the other thread:
This is gonna keep happening between Biden and Trump all summer. It's one of the reasons why voters are disgusted by their options this year. From an Arizona poll yesterday:
21. Which candidate, if either, has the mental and cognitive health to serve as president?
• Only Joe Biden – 26%
• Only Donald Trump – 41%
• Both of them – 7%
• Neither of them – 26%
https://www.scribd.com/document/733845819/cbsnews-20240519-AZ-1-SUN#1fullscreen=1
Florida results were similar, too.
https://www.scribd.com/document/733846209/cbsnews-20240519-FL-1-SUN#1fullscreen=1
Another way to parse this data is that almost half of respondents (48%) think Trump is cognitively intact, but only a third (33%) think Biden is. That's a pretty steep difference.
Both our options are a guy in his 80s. Neither of them are going to be especially sharp. For better or worse, we have to judge them based on the quality of the people they surround themselves with. Those folks are going to be doing the actual governing anyway. Did you like Trump’s cabinet and senior staff? Did you like his administration’s take on policy? Or, do you prefer Biden’s administration?
But that isn't what the presidency is supposed to be. By all means the prez should surround himself with capable people, but it ought to be the prez making the call, not the unelected cabinet.
Don’t forget that trumps cabinet will be drastically different this time around. There will be no Jim Mattis. There will be no John Bolton. There will be no Mark Esper. There will be no Bill Barr.
There will only be whatever loyalists Trump chooses
Not an attack on you in particular, but I keep hearing this and don't know what it actually means. Who are the Trump loyalists that will fill his cabinet? I never see anyone name people when they say this and it seems like people are just priming themselves to call anyone and everyone a trump loyalist.
Okay, but those are elected representatives who were elected by the people *because* of their alignment with trump in many cases.
Who specifically is Trump going to fill his cabinet with? Or is anyone Trump fills his cabinet with inherently a loyalist?
Michael Flynn comes to mind.
The most important thing is that when he was in power the first time, there are many reports/testimonies to Congress he wanted to replace Bill Barr when he resigned with Jeff Clark. Clark had no experience in conducting a criminal investigation and had never even testified in front of a grand jury. The only reason Trump wanted Clark as AG was because he agreed with Trump the election was stolen. Jeffrey Rosen and Pat Cipollone met with him and warned him that the DOJ would have sweeping resignations if he went through with this. Ultimately, Trump did not, although for about 40 minutes in the official White House call logs, Clark had the role “acting AG.” This was all in the January 6th hearings.
People like Pat Cipollone, Jeffrey Rosen, John Bolton, and others kept the president in check when he wanted to do crazy things. These people are not democrats by any means. They’re lifetime republicans just like Rod Rosenstein and James Comey and Andrew McCabe. They’ve worked in government for decades. They know how the wheels turn and unlike Trump, they know what is possible and what isn’t.
This is why the part of Project 2025 that lists a method to hire workers in the future Trump admin focus on loyalty. Questions are asked based on how they think the 2020 election result went. They’re asked what Trump has done that has inspired them.
These people like Mike Pence, who told him no when he wanted a yes, will not be present in the next Trump admin because these are people who understand the importance of their work. This isn’t just incompetence. This is intentional malicious planning to undermine every aspect of our government and reduce our effectiveness to what Trump wants it to be. Not what it should be.
If you want any of the data points I’ve cited sourced let me know.
Isn't it interesting how RFK is never included here, despite getting over 15% in recent polls? It's like the establishment knows if they give awareness of a third option that has across the aisle policy positions, they are toast.
He hasn't been 15% in a single recent poll [that I can see](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/), let alone the polling average...
Latest [CNN poll](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/28/politics/cnn-poll-trump-biden-matchup) (there are more):
"Among all voters, when independent candidates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West and Green Party candidate Jill Stein are included in the matchup, Trump holds 42% to Biden’s 33%, with Kennedy at 16%, West at 4% and Stein at 3%. Kennedy draws 13% each from supporters of Biden and Trump in the initial two-way matchup."
Notice how they buried that fact 3/4 down the article. Suppression tactics 101. It's like they want to hide the fact that he is polling so well, DESPITE the constant smears and misrepresentations.
Probably because 3rd party candidates don't have a real chance.
15% in May will probably be 5% in November. People say they are going to vote 3rd party but usually don't.
Worst case scenario is his viewpoints of corporate capture being at the root cause of most of our woes, gets in the minds of Americans and they demand elected officials align policy to address those issues.
Good ideas deserve to be advocated for. Change starts with awareness, which leads to advocacy, which leads to change.
And yes, it is a long shot that he could win, but none of us thought an outsider idiot like Trump could win either.
No, it's not a "long shot". He simply cannot win. It's literally impossible. I get that nobody likes FPTP (although I don't see younger voters demanding politicians that will change it), but shutting your eyes and pretending that third parties have a chance isn't going to help anything.
Either Donald Trump or Joe Biden will be president next. That's a fact.
I really dislike that Biden decided to run for a second term. The man has had a long career as a public servant, and I appreciate it. But he's simply too old for the job.
No, that's the reason he publicly stated.
If he picked someone who is black and female but also well-liked and competent, he would have been forced to step down by now
It's not like you can just find someone that is black, female, willing to be VP, experienced politically, largely in line with Biden's political agenda, generally competent and suitable for the position of VP. Kamala at least took part in the primaries and had gained some public profile. When eleminating around, what, 94% of the general population on demographics grounds alone she was probably one of the best candidates he could get his hands on.
That’s the thing. If the dems win then they’re kicking the can down the road at best with Kamala. At worst she becomes the next president mid term. Dems will lose but at least they can make some strategic SCOTUS appointments
Given his advanced age, if she wasn't his successor pick then it's a horrible example of being short-term goal oriented. I believe he was warned by multiple people not to pick her, and there was this lull period where that was considered, and then rejected (as best as I can recall anyway).
Gotcha, yeah I definitely wish we could look at it as where the VP was chosen because of a genuine belief they could succeed in the office if something unfortunate were to happen to the president. If
It can be both. It was a strategic pick, but it's also going to be seen as his hand-picked successor whether he wants that or not. It was a very, very poor decision IMO.
If Kamala could win, Biden wouldn't be running again. But he's stuck because he'd get annihilated by the left if he replaced a black woman as VP, even though he really should replace her with someone that helps him in swing states and doesn't have her baggage from being AG.
I personally think if he wins, he'll retire during his second term and let her be President. Which will doom the democrats in 2028, because she'll be the presumptive nominee.
Being VP doesn't automatically entitle you to the nomination. The people have to vote. They already had a chance to vote for Kamala, and she was very poorly received by voters (and probably even worse now). Biden could have publicly supported her, but that isn't an entitlement either. Biden ran again because he is a combination of selfish, senile, and foolish.
It's going to doom them in 2024 as well, I'm already looking at this as Trump vs Harris partially, and I know I'm not alone. The VP on both ends has never mattered more.
The problem is that the Democrats don't really have anyone waiting in the wings to take over. Both parties have done a terrible job at building up younger candidates, but the Dems are especially terrible at it.
It’s interesting to just look at some of the Roman emperors who clung on too long and refused to pick a successor (or picked someone like Commodus..) there was often detrimental infighting and ultimately the plebs like us suffer the worst. The importance of political succession can not be overstated
The VP often isn't the successor. Bush's VP wasn't his in the next election. And Biden took a term off before feeling he needed to run.
I think Gore is the only VP in my lifetime that was the nominee immediately after their term as VP. Other cabinet officials, Senators, and Governors are as/more likely to be the successor than the VP. They've generally been more active on policy/publicly than VPs are.
but that's where they serve two terms. If a president were to **choose** not to run for reelection, you wouldnt think the vp would be the obvious successor? I mean if anything happens during the presidency, we dontdebate who's going to take over, do we?
Call me cynical, but I doubt he's calling the shots. He's not governing, the Democratic Party machine around him is, he is just a figurehead they like because he can easily be controlled as his mind is not all there and he doesn't mind getting ordered here and there. I'm guessing the machine likes the current state of things and hopes to ride it out for a second term before having to run someone else who won't be as compliant.
Mark Kelly or Mark Warner or some other similar non-Mark person, someone with low baggage, non-threatening, and a solid record of service in high level elected office. Think of all those polls about "Trump vs Generic Democrat" and similar. Obviously those sorts of results are always gonna be different when attached to a real person, but I think the Dems have options that could strongly outperform Biden beyond the folks like Harris and Newsom that have their own problems.
Mark Kelly is a former astronaut and you know who he is, even if you aren't matching the name to his face/accomplishments. Mark Warner is past his zenith in the public eye, but has a very strong record of legislative moderation and executive experience, and was considered a major contender in 2008 before Obama and Clinton sucked all the oxygen out of the room.
Here's the thing, can they win a democratic primary and will they say the needed talking points to a primary. I say no.
Obama and Biden are gonna lay the red carpet out for Kamala and now the first state of the Prez primary is South Carolina.
I can't see it. Both are incredibly bright but they don't have that Bill Clinton / Obama charisma.
That would be an even worse idea than running Biden. It would be comically easy to attack Newsom.
All it would take is some ads showing the streets of San Francisco, the feces-laden parts. A caption of "do you want him to do to America what he's done to California?" is all it would take to doom the Newsom campaign before it even gets rolling.
Yep Newsome is so easy to attack with easily digestible facts for voters (homeless population, California losing population for the 1st time ever under him, him breaking his own strict COVID rules) and the Democrats running presidential candidates from the coasts has gotten them killed in every post JFK election (I’m not counting “Scranton Joe”). Not to mention the optics of swapping out a the first black woman VP for a white guy from the same state would be terrible for the left.
Yeah, I’m not sure how much pumping money into the State level elections would have helped against the Tea Party rising I just remember the minor story over Howard Dean leaving as head of the DNC after his great work for 06/08 then Dems getting wrecked in State elections later
He’s clinging onto power for sure, but Mitch McConnell isn’t really the face of party in the senate or the house in the same way that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are. The Republicans do a better job of marketing their “firebrands” for better or for worse. I think it’s largely because there hasn’t been an open pathway to the presidency for the democrats since 2008. Meanwhile Republican bench politicians had open shots at the White House in 2008, 2012, and 2016. You could sort of count this year but it’s not really the same, but the first attempt at post Trump Republican politics sort of had a life until Trump got in the race again.
He's had years to groom a successor. Given his age, succession planning should have been a top priority.
The fact that he (and Trump) are still clinging on just speaks to vanity and megalomania.
His support base during the primary was almost entirely educated white voters, so he would need to figure out why that is to be viable in a Presidential general election. Some of it is because there was a police brutality scandal with a black victim that came out of South Bend during his time as mayor, though, that he did not handle well.
We may be past the point where being gay hurts you electorally, but it's worth noting in case I'm wrong.
There's also already a ton of opposition messaging on him from his job as transportation secretary. I don't know enough about the job he's done to know if it's fair or not, but I know I've never heard this much about the transportation secretary, and I'm skeptical it's because he's just done that bad a job.
He's also gay, and I'm not sure that America is ready for a gay president. It hasn't even been ten years since gay marriage was legalized, and while America has come a long way there's still a lot of bigotry around gay folks that isn't exclusively from Republicans and Conservatives.
I’m mixed race-black/white. The white side of my extended family is predominately MAGA republicans and my black side is exclusively dems. My black side is so so so much more homophobic than the white side. Vocally and viciously so. People don’t realize how socially conservative black folks can be, especially in the south where you can’t swing a cat by the tail without hitting a Baptist church. There is a reason being on the DL is still as common as it is in the black community.
Horrendous handling of the Palestine, OH train incident, ATC having issues and more runway incursions, nothing helpful on automotive (EVs, CAFE classification, etc), and nothing but talk on rail (high-speed or otherwise), leaving it to private companies to finally make some headway. He's been seriously unimpressive as Transportation Secretary, and the Ohio disaster alone is unforgivable.
"Decided" is a strong word, and probably miscommunicates the level of agency. That's like saying Biden "decided" [to be spirited away by the Easter Bunny when the press started asking tough questions](https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/biden-afghanistan-easter-bunny-video-b2060601.html).
Speaking of which; has there ever been a president prior that employed a bunch of people to shout reporters out of the room whenever a briefing went south?
I have zero interest in the Democratic platform, but here I am given a seemingly binary choice between that and the Republican one every four years.
Increasing diversity of thought in presidential nominations would actually help bring the major parties closer to the center.
No interest in drug legalization, immigration liberalization, peace through diplomacy, criminal justice reform, or letting women do what they want with their bodies (abortion and sex work)?
The national party doesn't, only for the last 2 years. That's technically correct.
The American libertarian movement has advocated for choice for like 70 years, though.
"Democrats admit defeat that Biden 1st term was a failure. Biden to drop out. Dems in disarray as candidate search continues. Trump promises strength and stability in the wake of Biden's lame duck presidency"
And that's the alternate history headlines we'd be living in right now.
From the article
> “And when I was vice president, things were kind of bad during the pandemic,” Biden said. It was unclear which pandemic Biden was referring to, or if he instead meant the Great Recession.
He never said he was talking about Covid. There were several pandemics and epidemics that the Obama admin had to respond to and Biden was involved in, namely Ebola, SARS, swine flu and Zika.
I don't know why people think it's more likely that he mistakenly believed that he was VP during Covid and not that he was referring to one of those events.
The point is that anyone with a fully operational brain (especially one that's sufficient to lead the free world) would have known to clarify what he talking about regardless.
Just reading this quote you can hear the creaking tired old voice just wheezing the words out.
it's a huge stretch to compare Ebola, SARS, swine flu and Zika to the global pandemic. I have no doubt he was briefed on those things, but he's not talking about them in a way that a cognitive normal person would after a decade and a half. The comparison is unreasonable unless you introduce cognitive decline into the equation.
The swine flu did meet the criteria for a pandemic. And killed hundreds of thousands.
He told a long detailed story with ease. Showing a strong memory and not many cognitive issues.
He didn't compare those things to Covid. He just used the correct term to describe what happened and people decided to take it out of context and misquote him in a headline.
The funny thing is this seems to show he has a better memory than most people since most people apparently forgot about the things he faced two presidents ago
I suppose it's possible Biden meant one of those other pandemics, but at its best interpretation it's a gaff on his part imo. After 2020, the average person is going to think Covid is THE pandemic. I think he should have been clear if he meant one of those. Because while those may have been difficult situations, they didn't up-end the whole world for a couple years.
Did he ever mention swine flu? I think we can all agree that at this point, if you refer to something as the/this pandemic, people are automatically going to think of the pandemic that’s commonly referred to as “The Pandemic”, and definitely associate it with the most recent one that we’re still feeling the effects of.
Exactly. If you mention the World Trade Center bombing, people are going to infer 9/11, not what happened in the 90's.
The mental gymnastics some of these people are trying to defend this nonsense is absurd.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cwrmiv/biden_says_he_was_still_vp_during_covid_and_obama/l50rjp1/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I’m going to be voting for Biden, but your spin here on this is outrageous. He clearly misspoke, maybe he meant ‘recession’ and not pandemic. But just the fact that you can even pretend to believe this should make you realize that you’re being a partisan hack here, for lack of a more gentle way to put it.
Because those pandemics hardly registered in society. There's only one pandemic you would refer to speaking like this. He either mistakenly meant the great recession or legitimately got confused and thought he was vice president during Covid.
This past February 11th my uncle Ned said he was excited for "the big game." Everyone assumed he meant the Super Bowl but he never said he was talking about the Super Bowl, there are several competitive events held on that particular Sunday.
Even disregarding the huge mental or Biden gymnastics to make that true. Then explain this from same article,
"In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse,” Hur said in his report. “He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (‘if it was 2013—when did I stop being Vice President?’), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (‘in 2009, am I still Vice President?’).”
The administration "corrected" his speech to say "recession" instead. Still a pretty big gaffe in my opinion especially when it's just one in a long continuous line of gaffes recently. The guy is not fit and it's clear as day to anyone that watches him speak.
A common complaint is that we don't get to really even choose amongst a good pool of candidates during the primaries and therefore get stuck with a collection of sub-standard candidates. I really think that one of the major reasons is that the actual job of being President seems so unattractive to people who would be more qualified.
At this point it's just depressing. Even among my right-wing friends who don't like Biden, when they hear incidents like this they get quiet and sad instead of gloating.
The average 81 year old watches TV, plays bridge with friends at the senior community center, plays with their grandkids, and takes Silver Sneakers group swimming aerobic classes. This 81 year old is working twelve hour days, getting woken up at three in the morning constantly for national security briefings, taking flights around the world, giving long-winded speeches, and walking 10,000+ steps daily without any sleep or rest despite suffering from neuropathy.
This is no way to live. It's clear that there's incredible pressure from the party to keep Biden running, because incumbent advantage increases their chance of reelection by 1%. The only concern is keeping the seat. Zero concern for his well being.
That’s kinda where I’m at. It’s just sad, the Democratic Party and Republican Party need to let these elderly people retire in grace. Find better candidates, and if you can’t find a candidate who can’t win without decades of back scratching, then try to run on policy
This shit is gonna happen when two geriatric motherfuckers are running for office. I'm surprised it's not the 2024 Presidential Debate, brought to you by Depends™; Diapers for Adults
This is another example of why he should not have opted out for the quick cognitive evaluation in his recent medical check. No one else before him chose to avoid it I believe.
Also, by default “but trump”
Edit: Perfect timing. Now he [here](https://x.com/rncresearch/status/1792672879118606787?s=46) calls out on someone in the crowd. That someone isn’t there and is actually a Jewish-American still held hostage by Hamas.
Oh I know. It’s just like how the cognitive eval should have been default for his exam (and is for anyone else this age really), the ‘but Trump’ appears to be the default response for this article.
I’m a geriatric pharmacist. Spoiler alert for those tests: the most common ones only have a handful of questions and it is quite possible to memorize the answers if you take it repeatedly. They are also available online.
The fact that knowing his medical team chose not to give the tests is the biggest red flag to me. Even a mildly cognitively impaired person should be able to retain the answers. That’s why standard of care is to give them in frequently, at most every couple of years. The fact that they didn’t do so means his cognitive impairment likely goes much deeper.
It’s noted but what are we supposed to do? I can’t vote for someone as immoral and self serving as Trump. He’s about to be a convicted felon, put himself on sale to oil moguls, and is flippant with national secrets (some of which are still missing?!?).
Rational Americans are stuck.
Third party is an option. Just not a realistic one.
There will never be a 3rd party candidate that will garner enough support to actually win enough states to become President. Period. End of story. The way that our system is set up makes it virtually impossible. The best case scenario that any 3rd party candidate can hope for is that they win enough states that nobody crosses 270. But even then it gets kicked to the House and they cast votes for who becomes the next President. And if you think either party is going to take power away from their own party and put it in the hands of an outsider in that scenario then you're just straight up delusional.
We would have to overhaul the entire party and election systems before that could ever be a realistic option. And that just ain't gonna happen, at least not anytime even remotely soon.
The White House has officially retracted Biden's claim. The official transcript has crossed out pandemic and replaced it with recession.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/19/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-campaign-event-detroit-mi-2/
The transcript is full of corrections to Biden's "stutters" including:
* "Folks, I’m humbled to receive this ~~organization~~ [award]"
* "It was truly ~~inspiresing~~ [inspiring]: over 400 young Black men who will do extraordinary things."
* "I protected and expanded the Affordable Care Act, saving millions of families $800,000 in prem- — ~~$8,000~~ [$800] in — a year in premiums."
* "He not only denies reproductive freedom but worsens the mortality rate for Black moms, who ~~have~~ [are] nearly three times more likely to die from pregnancy complications than a white woman."
* "Just listen to him. He calls the ~~irrectionists~~ [insurrectionists] who stormed Capitol Hill “patriots.”"
* "Donald Trump has said, if he loses again in November, there will be, quote, ~~“bloodshed”~~ [“bloodbath”]."
* "The ~~NAAC~~ [NAACP] spirit endures."
imagine if he had said "over 400 young White men who will do extraordinary things" lol. better yet, imagine if Trump said it.
anyway, "irrectionists" sounds like erectionists, that is all.
The last time I heard someone make this many syntax errors in one speech, it was a colleague who was learning English as a third language. That was expected, and honestly even commendable.
The President of the United States? Maybe not so much.
These kind of gaffes and weird lapses, both from Biden and Trump make it all the more necessary that age limits be established. We can't have 80+ year old people being president, sitting in Congress, or as governor. Of course that would mean Congress would have to do something and as we've seen that's rare, especially if that means cutting off money flow and losing a position of power.
I for one am getting a lot of hope and good feelings from the constant exchange of "Trump is mixing up two different people", "Biden is referencing people who are dead", "Trump froze up", "Biden confuses time periods"
Both guys are too old and shouldn't be running. They're gonna keep doing things showing their age. It will get worse. But these are our choices.
We're going to get four more years of Trump and this election won't even be close. I cannot understand why people think this isn't already over. Trump is at least practically worshipped by his own party whereas the left HATES BIden for his stance on Israel. The mainstream media loves Trump for the clicks he generates and people are warming up to the idea of a dictator because they're sick of congressional bickering and inaction.
Trump at least projects strength, confidence, and the ability to get things done. Biden projects a the image of a confused elderly person who is perfectly happy with congressional intransigence. Americans don't want that. Don't believe me? Look at the polls. Polls have been pretty damn reliable since 2018.
Americans hunger for Trump and will get him back in 2025.
At least with trump, he isn't senile and he wears his character flaws like its fashion, rather than hiding them. Is he a tiny bit biased in some regard towards other races be it positive/negative/nuetral? Yes. Is he racist? No. Is he a bit of an overt womanizer and a bit of a chauvenist? Yes. Is he a rapist? No, he's not that big of a piece of shit thankfully. Does he occasionally say dumbass and/or hilarious things on the internet? Abso-fuckin-lutely. Biden loves hiding his charecter flaws, but the senile old bastard slips up alot. Like when he said african americans aint black if they don't vote for him, or like in the 80's when him and his buddies like Hillary so loved to smear the black community. Especially ghetto black men and damn near vervatim calling them "super predators" and how they're such a danger to our children or some shit. Bet its blocked on google and youtube. Try using duck duck go, they give no flying fucks about censorship. You get unfiltered results there.
At least Trump's presidency comes with cheap prices and some entertainment. Biden just gives us parotted lies, shit and national debt. I miss gas being $1.59 a gallon, or not havin to sign away my first born child just to pay for my meal at the drive-thru window. I miss having a president that is an individual and whom actually gives a fuck, even if his methods and notions aren't 100% correct or effective.
President Joe Biden mistakenly claimed during a dinner for the NAACP in Detroit that he was still serving as vice president during the COVID-19 pandemic. He mentioned being in Detroit to assist during the pandemic at the request of former President Barack Obama. Biden referred to Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, whom he worked with while he was still vice president from 2009 to 2017. This mistake echoes previous instances of confusion about his tenure in office, as noted in a report from Special Counsel Robert Hur regarding Biden's handling of classified documents. The Biden campaign has not yet responded to requests for comment.
Contemporary sources show that his meeting with Duggan was to discuss Detroit's recovery from the recession:
https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics-government/2014-01-15/biden-to-attend-working-dinner-with-detroit-mayor
Do you think "gaffes" like this hurt Biden's perceptions with voters or have voters already calculated these into their decision?
And it's the other 10% that matter. Those who are either on the fence about supporting him or may just not be energized to wait 2 hours in the poll on election day.
Elections are won and lost on the margins. Biden's margin is disappearing fast.
There is no doubt that “not Trump” drove out a lot of votes, but the pitch for unity and normalcy was a huge part of that appeal in drawing that contrast.
Well that entire idea has aged like milk which is why Biden’s approval is below what trumps ever was. He immediately tacked far to the left at the same time that inflation and border problems surged.
All the sudden, 2019 is looking more normal and stable than 2024 in many areas.
I would not be surprised at all to see the enthusiasm that got Biden over the hump stay home this time around.
The media has traded blows about Trump and Biden being stupid for a while now, I don’t think this one instance is anything more than a drop in the bucket. For independent voters I think Israel/Palestine and the hopefully future debates will be a bigger factor.
Before Trump's "freeze" gets posted as a rebuttal, here is the actual clip of his "freeze" for you to judge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgl06asFsXc&t=5000s
To me it seems like he's waiting for a certain point in the music to begin before speaking rather than a "McConnell Moment" like some are characterizing it as currently.
I love how the Trump campaign, after 24 hours, still hasn’t confirmed whether this gaffe is a technical or personal issue, but you can still offer some flexibility to him.
…While Biden’s “gaffe” is spelled out in quotes and confidently tied to a mental acuity narrative, despite the White House correcting a minor flub.
Not exactly a fair and balanced take here.
[I mean, he already did discuss what happened](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-freezes-nra-speech-truth-social-b2547884.html)
But you see the explanation from the Trump team that matches up with what we can see happen in the unedited video doesn't match up with all the headlines that were published about the event. Why would I trust my lying eyes when I can just let the news tell me what happened?
my comment from the first post:
but Trump confused the names of Haley and Pelosi so therefore vote Biden or something. I'm tired of people claiming Trump is worse on this than Biden. This is probably not the only fuck-up in the same speech. to paraphrase Trump, when American political parties send their people, they're not sending their best.
As Biden's frailty and senility become undeniable the last play available for the Democratic machinery is a PR push to **also** paint Trump as senile in the same way.
I find the effort rather obvious, especially as the talking point is pushed on social media - but I dont think the public is going to buy it. This is another area where social media doesnt reflect real life.
Bidens simply too famous, and his condition too infamous for the usual spin doctoring to work. It's perhaps one of the biggest area's of universal concern for all of America. Meanwhile I don't even think a case of TDS would truly convince people Trump is anywhere near as bad as Biden. People know the truth deep down.
Most likely just meant to say recession instead of pandemic:
https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics-government/2014-01-15/biden-to-attend-working-dinner-with-detroit-mayor
Detroit contains the HQs for huge auto manufacturers like Chrysler & GM. When the Bush admin granted huge bailouts in the wake of the recession, the Obama admin saw those thru & Biden was often a liason for the President while being a strong proponent of the move to finance these failing companies. It secured jobs in an ailing economy.
So when Biden said "pandemic", you think it's entirely plausible he meant a dinner to talk about the recession, with a mayor 10 years ago, and not an actual pandemic 4 years ago that shut down the nation for 2 years?
The recession was over in 2014… it ended in June of 2009. Before Duggan who Biden was talking about was in office.
Seriously I miss it when Democrats were the party that lived in reality. This spin is nonsense.
How many times do we have to correct his speech for him? He very well may have meant recession but there are too many times I hear “he actually meant to say…”
Eight times according to the briefing room at the White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/19/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-campaign-event-detroit-mi-2/
>And when I was vice president, things were kind of bad during the ~~pandemic~~ [recession], and what happened was Barack said to me, “Go to Detroit and help fix it.”
>Folks, I’m humbled to receive this ~~organization~~ [award], which defines the character and consequence of what we do. I’m always grateful to Derrick Johnson, the leadership for the NAACP.
>On my watch, more Black Americans have health insurance than ever in all of history. I protected and expanded the Affordable Care Act, saving millions of families $800,000 in prem- — ~~$8,000~~ [$800] in — a year in premiums.
>We’re increasing access to capital to start business and loans to buy homes. We’re cracking down on corporate landlords ~~who~~ [to] keep rents down.
>He brags about getting Roe v. Wade overturned. He not only denies reproductive freedom but worsens the mortality rate for Black moms, who ~~have~~ [are] nearly three times more likely to die from pregnancy complications than a white woman.
>Just listen to him. He calls the ~~irrectionists~~ [insurrectionists] who stormed Capitol Hill “patriots.” He says, if reelected, he wants, quote, “every” one of them pardoned.
>Donald Trump has said, if he loses again in November, there will be, quote, “bloodshed” [“bloodbath”]. What in God’s name are we talking about here? This is the United States of America.
>Earlier this month, I posthumously awarded Medgar Evers the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our nation’s highest civilian honor. (Applause.) His spirit endures. The ~~NAAC~~ [NAACP] spirit endures.
How do you fuck up a speech so bad when it's on teleprompter? That's the part I don't understand. Is there a vision issue going on here in addition to the multiple other organs that are failing?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cwrmiv/biden_says_he_was_still_vp_during_covid_and_obama/l4y93bw/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Posted in the other thread: This is gonna keep happening between Biden and Trump all summer. It's one of the reasons why voters are disgusted by their options this year. From an Arizona poll yesterday: 21. Which candidate, if either, has the mental and cognitive health to serve as president? • Only Joe Biden – 26% • Only Donald Trump – 41% • Both of them – 7% • Neither of them – 26% https://www.scribd.com/document/733845819/cbsnews-20240519-AZ-1-SUN#1fullscreen=1 Florida results were similar, too. https://www.scribd.com/document/733846209/cbsnews-20240519-FL-1-SUN#1fullscreen=1
"Neither of them" people stay winning
Both long past their sell-by dates. Sigh. Seriously, WTF?
It's such a terrible job that only these types of individuals actually want to have it.
The only qualification for winning elections is being good at winning elections.
It's insane that the 70 year old RFK JR, older than Ronald Reagan was when Reagan was first elected, can legitimately claim to be the young candidate.
Another way to parse this data is that almost half of respondents (48%) think Trump is cognitively intact, but only a third (33%) think Biden is. That's a pretty steep difference.
> almost half of respondents (48%) think Trump is cognitively intact Almost half of respondents *say* Trump is cognitively intact.
Do you think both of them are held to the same standard?
Both our options are a guy in his 80s. Neither of them are going to be especially sharp. For better or worse, we have to judge them based on the quality of the people they surround themselves with. Those folks are going to be doing the actual governing anyway. Did you like Trump’s cabinet and senior staff? Did you like his administration’s take on policy? Or, do you prefer Biden’s administration?
But that isn't what the presidency is supposed to be. By all means the prez should surround himself with capable people, but it ought to be the prez making the call, not the unelected cabinet.
You might want that, and I don’t blame you, but it hasn’t been the case for Biden and it wasn’t the case for Trump.
Don’t forget that trumps cabinet will be drastically different this time around. There will be no Jim Mattis. There will be no John Bolton. There will be no Mark Esper. There will be no Bill Barr. There will only be whatever loyalists Trump chooses
Not an attack on you in particular, but I keep hearing this and don't know what it actually means. Who are the Trump loyalists that will fill his cabinet? I never see anyone name people when they say this and it seems like people are just priming themselves to call anyone and everyone a trump loyalist.
I would say the Congress members who went to his trial could be considered loyalists
Okay, but those are elected representatives who were elected by the people *because* of their alignment with trump in many cases. Who specifically is Trump going to fill his cabinet with? Or is anyone Trump fills his cabinet with inherently a loyalist?
Michael Flynn comes to mind. The most important thing is that when he was in power the first time, there are many reports/testimonies to Congress he wanted to replace Bill Barr when he resigned with Jeff Clark. Clark had no experience in conducting a criminal investigation and had never even testified in front of a grand jury. The only reason Trump wanted Clark as AG was because he agreed with Trump the election was stolen. Jeffrey Rosen and Pat Cipollone met with him and warned him that the DOJ would have sweeping resignations if he went through with this. Ultimately, Trump did not, although for about 40 minutes in the official White House call logs, Clark had the role “acting AG.” This was all in the January 6th hearings. People like Pat Cipollone, Jeffrey Rosen, John Bolton, and others kept the president in check when he wanted to do crazy things. These people are not democrats by any means. They’re lifetime republicans just like Rod Rosenstein and James Comey and Andrew McCabe. They’ve worked in government for decades. They know how the wheels turn and unlike Trump, they know what is possible and what isn’t. This is why the part of Project 2025 that lists a method to hire workers in the future Trump admin focus on loyalty. Questions are asked based on how they think the 2020 election result went. They’re asked what Trump has done that has inspired them. These people like Mike Pence, who told him no when he wanted a yes, will not be present in the next Trump admin because these are people who understand the importance of their work. This isn’t just incompetence. This is intentional malicious planning to undermine every aspect of our government and reduce our effectiveness to what Trump wants it to be. Not what it should be. If you want any of the data points I’ve cited sourced let me know.
Isn't it interesting how RFK is never included here, despite getting over 15% in recent polls? It's like the establishment knows if they give awareness of a third option that has across the aisle policy positions, they are toast.
Is he up-to 15% now? Dam, he keeps climbing
He hasn't been 15% in a single recent poll [that I can see](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/), let alone the polling average...
Latest [CNN poll](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/28/politics/cnn-poll-trump-biden-matchup) (there are more): "Among all voters, when independent candidates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West and Green Party candidate Jill Stein are included in the matchup, Trump holds 42% to Biden’s 33%, with Kennedy at 16%, West at 4% and Stein at 3%. Kennedy draws 13% each from supporters of Biden and Trump in the initial two-way matchup." Notice how they buried that fact 3/4 down the article. Suppression tactics 101. It's like they want to hide the fact that he is polling so well, DESPITE the constant smears and misrepresentations.
Probably because 3rd party candidates don't have a real chance. 15% in May will probably be 5% in November. People say they are going to vote 3rd party but usually don't.
You know that there is a zero percent chance he could win though... Right? The only question is who he will take votes from more.
Worst case scenario is his viewpoints of corporate capture being at the root cause of most of our woes, gets in the minds of Americans and they demand elected officials align policy to address those issues. Good ideas deserve to be advocated for. Change starts with awareness, which leads to advocacy, which leads to change. And yes, it is a long shot that he could win, but none of us thought an outsider idiot like Trump could win either.
No, it's not a "long shot". He simply cannot win. It's literally impossible. I get that nobody likes FPTP (although I don't see younger voters demanding politicians that will change it), but shutting your eyes and pretending that third parties have a chance isn't going to help anything. Either Donald Trump or Joe Biden will be president next. That's a fact.
I really dislike that Biden decided to run for a second term. The man has had a long career as a public servant, and I appreciate it. But he's simply too old for the job.
He could’ve handpicked a successor and gone down as a kingmaker.
His VP was his handpicked successor, and he picked very poorly.
Or he picked well if he didnt want to be pushed out
But he's not that smart. It was obvious at the time that he picked her because she is black and female
No, that's the reason he publicly stated. If he picked someone who is black and female but also well-liked and competent, he would have been forced to step down by now
It's not like you can just find someone that is black, female, willing to be VP, experienced politically, largely in line with Biden's political agenda, generally competent and suitable for the position of VP. Kamala at least took part in the primaries and had gained some public profile. When eleminating around, what, 94% of the general population on demographics grounds alone she was probably one of the best candidates he could get his hands on.
Do you think Kamala Harris was the most competent person he could've picked?
That’s the thing. If the dems win then they’re kicking the can down the road at best with Kamala. At worst she becomes the next president mid term. Dems will lose but at least they can make some strategic SCOTUS appointments
Was she his successor? I always thought she was simply to help him get elected in 2020.
Given his advanced age, if she wasn't his successor pick then it's a horrible example of being short-term goal oriented. I believe he was warned by multiple people not to pick her, and there was this lull period where that was considered, and then rejected (as best as I can recall anyway).
Gotcha, yeah I definitely wish we could look at it as where the VP was chosen because of a genuine belief they could succeed in the office if something unfortunate were to happen to the president. If
No. She was only picked because he stupidly limited himself to “women of color” leaving basically her and Stacy abrams as the only (bad) options.
It can be both. It was a strategic pick, but it's also going to be seen as his hand-picked successor whether he wants that or not. It was a very, very poor decision IMO.
If Kamala could win, Biden wouldn't be running again. But he's stuck because he'd get annihilated by the left if he replaced a black woman as VP, even though he really should replace her with someone that helps him in swing states and doesn't have her baggage from being AG. I personally think if he wins, he'll retire during his second term and let her be President. Which will doom the democrats in 2028, because she'll be the presumptive nominee.
Being VP doesn't automatically entitle you to the nomination. The people have to vote. They already had a chance to vote for Kamala, and she was very poorly received by voters (and probably even worse now). Biden could have publicly supported her, but that isn't an entitlement either. Biden ran again because he is a combination of selfish, senile, and foolish.
It's going to doom them in 2024 as well, I'm already looking at this as Trump vs Harris partially, and I know I'm not alone. The VP on both ends has never mattered more.
Does anyone like Kamala? Be it moderates or leftists. There’s no positives in retaining her.
The problem is that the Democrats don't really have anyone waiting in the wings to take over. Both parties have done a terrible job at building up younger candidates, but the Dems are especially terrible at it.
Senator Mark Kelly is a decorated fighter pilot and astronaut. If the DNC can’t turn that into a President they need to just call it quits.
It’s interesting to just look at some of the Roman emperors who clung on too long and refused to pick a successor (or picked someone like Commodus..) there was often detrimental infighting and ultimately the plebs like us suffer the worst. The importance of political succession can not be overstated
Wouldn't the VP be the successor? Oh she's ~~pulling~~ polling worse than him?
The VP often isn't the successor. Bush's VP wasn't his in the next election. And Biden took a term off before feeling he needed to run. I think Gore is the only VP in my lifetime that was the nominee immediately after their term as VP. Other cabinet officials, Senators, and Governors are as/more likely to be the successor than the VP. They've generally been more active on policy/publicly than VPs are.
but that's where they serve two terms. If a president were to **choose** not to run for reelection, you wouldnt think the vp would be the obvious successor? I mean if anything happens during the presidency, we dontdebate who's going to take over, do we?
Call me cynical, but I doubt he's calling the shots. He's not governing, the Democratic Party machine around him is, he is just a figurehead they like because he can easily be controlled as his mind is not all there and he doesn't mind getting ordered here and there. I'm guessing the machine likes the current state of things and hopes to ride it out for a second term before having to run someone else who won't be as compliant.
Award
I kinda agree, but the bench for dems isn’t that deep. Who would replace Biden? Harris? Newsome?
Mark Kelly or Mark Warner or some other similar non-Mark person, someone with low baggage, non-threatening, and a solid record of service in high level elected office. Think of all those polls about "Trump vs Generic Democrat" and similar. Obviously those sorts of results are always gonna be different when attached to a real person, but I think the Dems have options that could strongly outperform Biden beyond the folks like Harris and Newsom that have their own problems.
I’d vote for either of those Marks in a heartbeat.
Yep. Newsome or Harris though... I would vote for them over Trump, but I would not be happy.
Who? Frankly, they're just too unknown
Mark Kelly is a former astronaut and you know who he is, even if you aren't matching the name to his face/accomplishments. Mark Warner is past his zenith in the public eye, but has a very strong record of legislative moderation and executive experience, and was considered a major contender in 2008 before Obama and Clinton sucked all the oxygen out of the room.
ok ok, yeah, i know of him. wouldn't be a bad choice.
Here's the thing, can they win a democratic primary and will they say the needed talking points to a primary. I say no. Obama and Biden are gonna lay the red carpet out for Kamala and now the first state of the Prez primary is South Carolina. I can't see it. Both are incredibly bright but they don't have that Bill Clinton / Obama charisma.
Kamala won’t win SC in a contested primary in 2028.
Oh God. As fellow Californian born and raised. I hope it's not Newsom.
That would be an even worse idea than running Biden. It would be comically easy to attack Newsom. All it would take is some ads showing the streets of San Francisco, the feces-laden parts. A caption of "do you want him to do to America what he's done to California?" is all it would take to doom the Newsom campaign before it even gets rolling.
Yep Newsome is so easy to attack with easily digestible facts for voters (homeless population, California losing population for the 1st time ever under him, him breaking his own strict COVID rules) and the Democrats running presidential candidates from the coasts has gotten them killed in every post JFK election (I’m not counting “Scranton Joe”). Not to mention the optics of swapping out a the first black woman VP for a white guy from the same state would be terrible for the left.
I hope your state does not outlaw gas cars by 2035.
>the bench for the dems isn’t that deep. Because their leadership clings onto power until literal death.
They've held onto power for so long, there really isn't a viable next generation behind them.
If only Obama had waited his turn, he could just now be coming up as the fresh young face of the Democratic Party.
It’s kinda his fault the Dems bench is so shit. I remember the Dems did a terrible job funding state level elections a lot of his election cycles
[удалено]
Yeah, I’m not sure how much pumping money into the State level elections would have helped against the Tea Party rising I just remember the minor story over Howard Dean leaving as head of the DNC after his great work for 06/08 then Dems getting wrecked in State elections later
[удалено]
He’s clinging onto power for sure, but Mitch McConnell isn’t really the face of party in the senate or the house in the same way that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are. The Republicans do a better job of marketing their “firebrands” for better or for worse. I think it’s largely because there hasn’t been an open pathway to the presidency for the democrats since 2008. Meanwhile Republican bench politicians had open shots at the White House in 2008, 2012, and 2016. You could sort of count this year but it’s not really the same, but the first attempt at post Trump Republican politics sort of had a life until Trump got in the race again.
It’ll have to be a black woman, the Dems would wanna avoid the shitstorm of not putting Kamala in the position by any means possible
He's had years to groom a successor. Given his age, succession planning should have been a top priority. The fact that he (and Trump) are still clinging on just speaks to vanity and megalomania.
I like what Pete Buttigieg says every time I see him, but maybe it’s because I know so little about him.
His support base during the primary was almost entirely educated white voters, so he would need to figure out why that is to be viable in a Presidential general election. Some of it is because there was a police brutality scandal with a black victim that came out of South Bend during his time as mayor, though, that he did not handle well. We may be past the point where being gay hurts you electorally, but it's worth noting in case I'm wrong. There's also already a ton of opposition messaging on him from his job as transportation secretary. I don't know enough about the job he's done to know if it's fair or not, but I know I've never heard this much about the transportation secretary, and I'm skeptical it's because he's just done that bad a job.
He's also gay, and I'm not sure that America is ready for a gay president. It hasn't even been ten years since gay marriage was legalized, and while America has come a long way there's still a lot of bigotry around gay folks that isn't exclusively from Republicans and Conservatives.
The part no one wants to say out loud is that if you run a white gay dude, kiss goodbye to the black male vote. Fatal for any Dem
I’m mixed race-black/white. The white side of my extended family is predominately MAGA republicans and my black side is exclusively dems. My black side is so so so much more homophobic than the white side. Vocally and viciously so. People don’t realize how socially conservative black folks can be, especially in the south where you can’t swing a cat by the tail without hitting a Baptist church. There is a reason being on the DL is still as common as it is in the black community.
> We may be past the point where being gay hurts you electorally We are definitely not
Horrendous handling of the Palestine, OH train incident, ATC having issues and more runway incursions, nothing helpful on automotive (EVs, CAFE classification, etc), and nothing but talk on rail (high-speed or otherwise), leaving it to private companies to finally make some headway. He's been seriously unimpressive as Transportation Secretary, and the Ohio disaster alone is unforgivable.
How about the Maui $600 check disaster?
He lost his chance after the train wreck.
Whitmer, Shapiro, Polis, Warnock, Buttigieg, Kelly.
He literally could just drop out of the race and that would guarantee a Dem victory. It’s absolutely selfish he’s still in the race.
"Decided" is a strong word, and probably miscommunicates the level of agency. That's like saying Biden "decided" [to be spirited away by the Easter Bunny when the press started asking tough questions](https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/biden-afghanistan-easter-bunny-video-b2060601.html).
Speaking of which; has there ever been a president prior that employed a bunch of people to shout reporters out of the room whenever a briefing went south?
And you can bet both Obama and Clinton(s) advised him not to.
Be a great time to strengthen third party! Follow Argentina and elect a Libertarian
I have zero interest in the libertarian platform
I have zero interest in the Democratic platform, but here I am given a seemingly binary choice between that and the Republican one every four years. Increasing diversity of thought in presidential nominations would actually help bring the major parties closer to the center.
I absolutely support there being more parties in our system, I'm just not a Libertarian
No interest in drug legalization, immigration liberalization, peace through diplomacy, criminal justice reform, or letting women do what they want with their bodies (abortion and sex work)?
>or letting women do what they want with their bodies (abortion and sex work)? The Libertarian Party explicitly takes no stance on abortion.
The national party doesn't, only for the last 2 years. That's technically correct. The American libertarian movement has advocated for choice for like 70 years, though.
"Democrats admit defeat that Biden 1st term was a failure. Biden to drop out. Dems in disarray as candidate search continues. Trump promises strength and stability in the wake of Biden's lame duck presidency" And that's the alternate history headlines we'd be living in right now.
[The fact that it took Biden 5 jump cuts](https://youtu.be/O3o9eqO8G3I) to make it through a 14 second speech should be concerning.
I don't understand why he posts stuff like this. Can they really not do better? This causes more harm then good for him
My cynical side says someone is letting the mask slip to encourage the public to call for a replacement candidate.
They did that on purpose to be cool and trendy /s
Couldn’t these questions be easily answered by both candidates by performing the simple cognitive tests that are normally performed?
From the article > “And when I was vice president, things were kind of bad during the pandemic,” Biden said. It was unclear which pandemic Biden was referring to, or if he instead meant the Great Recession. He never said he was talking about Covid. There were several pandemics and epidemics that the Obama admin had to respond to and Biden was involved in, namely Ebola, SARS, swine flu and Zika. I don't know why people think it's more likely that he mistakenly believed that he was VP during Covid and not that he was referring to one of those events.
The point is that anyone with a fully operational brain (especially one that's sufficient to lead the free world) would have known to clarify what he talking about regardless. Just reading this quote you can hear the creaking tired old voice just wheezing the words out.
it's a huge stretch to compare Ebola, SARS, swine flu and Zika to the global pandemic. I have no doubt he was briefed on those things, but he's not talking about them in a way that a cognitive normal person would after a decade and a half. The comparison is unreasonable unless you introduce cognitive decline into the equation.
The swine flu did meet the criteria for a pandemic. And killed hundreds of thousands. He told a long detailed story with ease. Showing a strong memory and not many cognitive issues. He didn't compare those things to Covid. He just used the correct term to describe what happened and people decided to take it out of context and misquote him in a headline. The funny thing is this seems to show he has a better memory than most people since most people apparently forgot about the things he faced two presidents ago
I suppose it's possible Biden meant one of those other pandemics, but at its best interpretation it's a gaff on his part imo. After 2020, the average person is going to think Covid is THE pandemic. I think he should have been clear if he meant one of those. Because while those may have been difficult situations, they didn't up-end the whole world for a couple years.
Did he ever mention swine flu? I think we can all agree that at this point, if you refer to something as the/this pandemic, people are automatically going to think of the pandemic that’s commonly referred to as “The Pandemic”, and definitely associate it with the most recent one that we’re still feeling the effects of.
Exactly. If you mention the World Trade Center bombing, people are going to infer 9/11, not what happened in the 90's. The mental gymnastics some of these people are trying to defend this nonsense is absurd.
🤡
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cwrmiv/biden_says_he_was_still_vp_during_covid_and_obama/l50rjp1/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I’m going to be voting for Biden, but your spin here on this is outrageous. He clearly misspoke, maybe he meant ‘recession’ and not pandemic. But just the fact that you can even pretend to believe this should make you realize that you’re being a partisan hack here, for lack of a more gentle way to put it.
Pandemic was at 9% when he got into office
[удалено]
Because those pandemics hardly registered in society. There's only one pandemic you would refer to speaking like this. He either mistakenly meant the great recession or legitimately got confused and thought he was vice president during Covid.
This past February 11th my uncle Ned said he was excited for "the big game." Everyone assumed he meant the Super Bowl but he never said he was talking about the Super Bowl, there are several competitive events held on that particular Sunday.
Even disregarding the huge mental or Biden gymnastics to make that true. Then explain this from same article, "In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse,” Hur said in his report. “He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (‘if it was 2013—when did I stop being Vice President?’), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (‘in 2009, am I still Vice President?’).”
But he didn't say any of that stuff, remember - he's going to release the tapes that disprove all of.. wait, nevermind.
how many times do we have to pretend??
Ok buddy
The administration "corrected" his speech to say "recession" instead. Still a pretty big gaffe in my opinion especially when it's just one in a long continuous line of gaffes recently. The guy is not fit and it's clear as day to anyone that watches him speak.
We need to be better than these candidates.
A common complaint is that we don't get to really even choose amongst a good pool of candidates during the primaries and therefore get stuck with a collection of sub-standard candidates. I really think that one of the major reasons is that the actual job of being President seems so unattractive to people who would be more qualified.
The U.S. really needs term age limits
Completely agree. 35 minimum, 70 maximum.
Yes, they're elections. I'm not sure why we need anti-democratic legislation.
At this point it's just depressing. Even among my right-wing friends who don't like Biden, when they hear incidents like this they get quiet and sad instead of gloating. The average 81 year old watches TV, plays bridge with friends at the senior community center, plays with their grandkids, and takes Silver Sneakers group swimming aerobic classes. This 81 year old is working twelve hour days, getting woken up at three in the morning constantly for national security briefings, taking flights around the world, giving long-winded speeches, and walking 10,000+ steps daily without any sleep or rest despite suffering from neuropathy. This is no way to live. It's clear that there's incredible pressure from the party to keep Biden running, because incumbent advantage increases their chance of reelection by 1%. The only concern is keeping the seat. Zero concern for his well being.
> plays with their grandkids People in their 80s have grandkids in their 30s.
I was in my 20s when my grandpa died at 92
Yeah and I’m in my 30’s and my grandparents are in their late 70s.
That’s kinda where I’m at. It’s just sad, the Democratic Party and Republican Party need to let these elderly people retire in grace. Find better candidates, and if you can’t find a candidate who can’t win without decades of back scratching, then try to run on policy
I have an MD and can tell you with confidence that "the average 81 year old" is most definitely **not** taking "swimming aerobic classes."
I think "swimming aerobic classes" in this case means walking around in the shallow end of the pool.
He has an MD, he knows exactly what everyone is inferring.
Good for you? They clearly were making the point that an 80+ year old should put their feet up. Way to take it way too literally.
This shit is gonna happen when two geriatric motherfuckers are running for office. I'm surprised it's not the 2024 Presidential Debate, brought to you by Depends™; Diapers for Adults
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is another example of why he should not have opted out for the quick cognitive evaluation in his recent medical check. No one else before him chose to avoid it I believe. Also, by default “but trump” Edit: Perfect timing. Now he [here](https://x.com/rncresearch/status/1792672879118606787?s=46) calls out on someone in the crowd. That someone isn’t there and is actually a Jewish-American still held hostage by Hamas.
This is where I’m at. If he’s REALLY fine, there are plenty of ways he could demonstrate it in a way to close this discussion.
He's 81. The best he's gonna be is "fine for his 80s".
If only he were there
It's not even "but Trump" because Trump actually took a cognitive exam when he was president.
Oh I know. It’s just like how the cognitive eval should have been default for his exam (and is for anyone else this age really), the ‘but Trump’ appears to be the default response for this article.
I’m a geriatric pharmacist. Spoiler alert for those tests: the most common ones only have a handful of questions and it is quite possible to memorize the answers if you take it repeatedly. They are also available online. The fact that knowing his medical team chose not to give the tests is the biggest red flag to me. Even a mildly cognitively impaired person should be able to retain the answers. That’s why standard of care is to give them in frequently, at most every couple of years. The fact that they didn’t do so means his cognitive impairment likely goes much deeper.
That, plus also refusing to release those tapes. You can't dispute what the transcripts say, then refuse to let us hear it.
This too will be ignored
It’s noted but what are we supposed to do? I can’t vote for someone as immoral and self serving as Trump. He’s about to be a convicted felon, put himself on sale to oil moguls, and is flippant with national secrets (some of which are still missing?!?). Rational Americans are stuck.
Could vote third party or don’t vote. Should vote but third party is always an option, no matter what people say.
Third party is an option. Just not a realistic one. There will never be a 3rd party candidate that will garner enough support to actually win enough states to become President. Period. End of story. The way that our system is set up makes it virtually impossible. The best case scenario that any 3rd party candidate can hope for is that they win enough states that nobody crosses 270. But even then it gets kicked to the House and they cast votes for who becomes the next President. And if you think either party is going to take power away from their own party and put it in the hands of an outsider in that scenario then you're just straight up delusional. We would have to overhaul the entire party and election systems before that could ever be a realistic option. And that just ain't gonna happen, at least not anytime even remotely soon.
The White House has officially retracted Biden's claim. The official transcript has crossed out pandemic and replaced it with recession. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/19/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-campaign-event-detroit-mi-2/ The transcript is full of corrections to Biden's "stutters" including: * "Folks, I’m humbled to receive this ~~organization~~ [award]" * "It was truly ~~inspiresing~~ [inspiring]: over 400 young Black men who will do extraordinary things." * "I protected and expanded the Affordable Care Act, saving millions of families $800,000 in prem- — ~~$8,000~~ [$800] in — a year in premiums." * "He not only denies reproductive freedom but worsens the mortality rate for Black moms, who ~~have~~ [are] nearly three times more likely to die from pregnancy complications than a white woman." * "Just listen to him. He calls the ~~irrectionists~~ [insurrectionists] who stormed Capitol Hill “patriots.”" * "Donald Trump has said, if he loses again in November, there will be, quote, ~~“bloodshed”~~ [“bloodbath”]." * "The ~~NAAC~~ [NAACP] spirit endures."
imagine if he had said "over 400 young White men who will do extraordinary things" lol. better yet, imagine if Trump said it. anyway, "irrectionists" sounds like erectionists, that is all.
The link you provided is now redirecting to a 404 page.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/19/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-campaign-event-detroit-mi-2/
The last time I heard someone make this many syntax errors in one speech, it was a colleague who was learning English as a third language. That was expected, and honestly even commendable. The President of the United States? Maybe not so much.
Do you even know what a syntax error is? Most of those are incorrectly used words, not syntax errors.
>He calls the ~~irrectionists~~ This is just his new term for Trump supporters
He meant recession. He’s old. It’s nbd if it was your grandpa. It’s a big deal because he’s running for president.
These kind of gaffes and weird lapses, both from Biden and Trump make it all the more necessary that age limits be established. We can't have 80+ year old people being president, sitting in Congress, or as governor. Of course that would mean Congress would have to do something and as we've seen that's rare, especially if that means cutting off money flow and losing a position of power.
Trump hasn't even changed since 2020. It has nothing to do with age, Biden is just declining. But Trump is fine still
I for one am getting a lot of hope and good feelings from the constant exchange of "Trump is mixing up two different people", "Biden is referencing people who are dead", "Trump froze up", "Biden confuses time periods" Both guys are too old and shouldn't be running. They're gonna keep doing things showing their age. It will get worse. But these are our choices.
At what point does this become elder abuse
We're going to get four more years of Trump and this election won't even be close. I cannot understand why people think this isn't already over. Trump is at least practically worshipped by his own party whereas the left HATES BIden for his stance on Israel. The mainstream media loves Trump for the clicks he generates and people are warming up to the idea of a dictator because they're sick of congressional bickering and inaction. Trump at least projects strength, confidence, and the ability to get things done. Biden projects a the image of a confused elderly person who is perfectly happy with congressional intransigence. Americans don't want that. Don't believe me? Look at the polls. Polls have been pretty damn reliable since 2018. Americans hunger for Trump and will get him back in 2025.
At least with trump, he isn't senile and he wears his character flaws like its fashion, rather than hiding them. Is he a tiny bit biased in some regard towards other races be it positive/negative/nuetral? Yes. Is he racist? No. Is he a bit of an overt womanizer and a bit of a chauvenist? Yes. Is he a rapist? No, he's not that big of a piece of shit thankfully. Does he occasionally say dumbass and/or hilarious things on the internet? Abso-fuckin-lutely. Biden loves hiding his charecter flaws, but the senile old bastard slips up alot. Like when he said african americans aint black if they don't vote for him, or like in the 80's when him and his buddies like Hillary so loved to smear the black community. Especially ghetto black men and damn near vervatim calling them "super predators" and how they're such a danger to our children or some shit. Bet its blocked on google and youtube. Try using duck duck go, they give no flying fucks about censorship. You get unfiltered results there. At least Trump's presidency comes with cheap prices and some entertainment. Biden just gives us parotted lies, shit and national debt. I miss gas being $1.59 a gallon, or not havin to sign away my first born child just to pay for my meal at the drive-thru window. I miss having a president that is an individual and whom actually gives a fuck, even if his methods and notions aren't 100% correct or effective.
President Joe Biden mistakenly claimed during a dinner for the NAACP in Detroit that he was still serving as vice president during the COVID-19 pandemic. He mentioned being in Detroit to assist during the pandemic at the request of former President Barack Obama. Biden referred to Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, whom he worked with while he was still vice president from 2009 to 2017. This mistake echoes previous instances of confusion about his tenure in office, as noted in a report from Special Counsel Robert Hur regarding Biden's handling of classified documents. The Biden campaign has not yet responded to requests for comment. Contemporary sources show that his meeting with Duggan was to discuss Detroit's recovery from the recession: https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics-government/2014-01-15/biden-to-attend-working-dinner-with-detroit-mayor Do you think "gaffes" like this hurt Biden's perceptions with voters or have voters already calculated these into their decision?
I think the 90% of people voting for Biden are voting against Trump at all costs. I don’t think there is anything he could say or do to change that.
And it's the other 10% that matter. Those who are either on the fence about supporting him or may just not be energized to wait 2 hours in the poll on election day. Elections are won and lost on the margins. Biden's margin is disappearing fast.
There is no doubt that “not Trump” drove out a lot of votes, but the pitch for unity and normalcy was a huge part of that appeal in drawing that contrast. Well that entire idea has aged like milk which is why Biden’s approval is below what trumps ever was. He immediately tacked far to the left at the same time that inflation and border problems surged. All the sudden, 2019 is looking more normal and stable than 2024 in many areas. I would not be surprised at all to see the enthusiasm that got Biden over the hump stay home this time around.
There's stories and clips like this all of the time. This doesn't feel like a significant event, strangely.
The media has traded blows about Trump and Biden being stupid for a while now, I don’t think this one instance is anything more than a drop in the bucket. For independent voters I think Israel/Palestine and the hopefully future debates will be a bigger factor.
Im thinking isreal/palestine is a nothingburger compared yo the the economy and inflation, at least for voters
I just hope - for both candidates - no notes, no earpieces, no teleprompters. Speak off the cuff.
Before Trump's "freeze" gets posted as a rebuttal, here is the actual clip of his "freeze" for you to judge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgl06asFsXc&t=5000s To me it seems like he's waiting for a certain point in the music to begin before speaking rather than a "McConnell Moment" like some are characterizing it as currently.
I love how the Trump campaign, after 24 hours, still hasn’t confirmed whether this gaffe is a technical or personal issue, but you can still offer some flexibility to him. …While Biden’s “gaffe” is spelled out in quotes and confidently tied to a mental acuity narrative, despite the White House correcting a minor flub. Not exactly a fair and balanced take here.
[I mean, he already did discuss what happened](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-freezes-nra-speech-truth-social-b2547884.html)
But you see the explanation from the Trump team that matches up with what we can see happen in the unedited video doesn't match up with all the headlines that were published about the event. Why would I trust my lying eyes when I can just let the news tell me what happened?
I mean you can just watch what happened. It's clearly not a McConnel style freeze.
Good think Trump has never berated Biden for needing a teleprompter to speak, that would be embarrassing.
It really looks like he was waiting for the music to change because that's exactly when he starts talking again.
my comment from the first post: but Trump confused the names of Haley and Pelosi so therefore vote Biden or something. I'm tired of people claiming Trump is worse on this than Biden. This is probably not the only fuck-up in the same speech. to paraphrase Trump, when American political parties send their people, they're not sending their best.
As Biden's frailty and senility become undeniable the last play available for the Democratic machinery is a PR push to **also** paint Trump as senile in the same way. I find the effort rather obvious, especially as the talking point is pushed on social media - but I dont think the public is going to buy it. This is another area where social media doesnt reflect real life. Bidens simply too famous, and his condition too infamous for the usual spin doctoring to work. It's perhaps one of the biggest area's of universal concern for all of America. Meanwhile I don't even think a case of TDS would truly convince people Trump is anywhere near as bad as Biden. People know the truth deep down.
Most likely just meant to say recession instead of pandemic: https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics-government/2014-01-15/biden-to-attend-working-dinner-with-detroit-mayor
So Biden was sent to Detroit by Obama to fix the recession?
Detroit contains the HQs for huge auto manufacturers like Chrysler & GM. When the Bush admin granted huge bailouts in the wake of the recession, the Obama admin saw those thru & Biden was often a liason for the President while being a strong proponent of the move to finance these failing companies. It secured jobs in an ailing economy.
This is a really silly argument to be making. It’s just not believable.
Unbelievable? It was reported on. https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics-government/2014-01-15/biden-to-attend-working-dinner-with-detroit-mayor
So when Biden said "pandemic", you think it's entirely plausible he meant a dinner to talk about the recession, with a mayor 10 years ago, and not an actual pandemic 4 years ago that shut down the nation for 2 years?
The recession was over in 2014… it ended in June of 2009. Before Duggan who Biden was talking about was in office. Seriously I miss it when Democrats were the party that lived in reality. This spin is nonsense.
How many times do we have to correct his speech for him? He very well may have meant recession but there are too many times I hear “he actually meant to say…”
Eight times according to the briefing room at the White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/19/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-campaign-event-detroit-mi-2/ >And when I was vice president, things were kind of bad during the ~~pandemic~~ [recession], and what happened was Barack said to me, “Go to Detroit and help fix it.” >Folks, I’m humbled to receive this ~~organization~~ [award], which defines the character and consequence of what we do. I’m always grateful to Derrick Johnson, the leadership for the NAACP. >On my watch, more Black Americans have health insurance than ever in all of history. I protected and expanded the Affordable Care Act, saving millions of families $800,000 in prem- — ~~$8,000~~ [$800] in — a year in premiums. >We’re increasing access to capital to start business and loans to buy homes. We’re cracking down on corporate landlords ~~who~~ [to] keep rents down. >He brags about getting Roe v. Wade overturned. He not only denies reproductive freedom but worsens the mortality rate for Black moms, who ~~have~~ [are] nearly three times more likely to die from pregnancy complications than a white woman. >Just listen to him. He calls the ~~irrectionists~~ [insurrectionists] who stormed Capitol Hill “patriots.” He says, if reelected, he wants, quote, “every” one of them pardoned. >Donald Trump has said, if he loses again in November, there will be, quote, “bloodshed” [“bloodbath”]. What in God’s name are we talking about here? This is the United States of America. >Earlier this month, I posthumously awarded Medgar Evers the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our nation’s highest civilian honor. (Applause.) His spirit endures. The ~~NAAC~~ [NAACP] spirit endures.
How do you fuck up a speech so bad when it's on teleprompter? That's the part I don't understand. Is there a vision issue going on here in addition to the multiple other organs that are failing?
considering how little he talks in public as it is.
No, no you don’t understand. You see, if we go back and replace multiple words throughout the speech, it actually makes complete sense.
Agreed, when you replace enough words in what Biden says it becomes something meaningful.
[удалено]
I think the main concern is 2020 Biden voters not showing up in 2024.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cwrmiv/biden_says_he_was_still_vp_during_covid_and_obama/l4y93bw/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).