We gotta talk about Uncle Joe

[oldbrian]

edgmatt,  I think a lot of it isn't so much 'I love Biden' as 'Crunch is saying something stupid again'

I don't doubt that Biden is stumbling over words.  Just like Trump did.  Just like Obama did.  Just like Bush did.
I would even believe that he is doing it more than they did.
But Crunch has been pushing the dementia angle hard, and by now everyone probably just automatically pushes back against him.  This goes back to that credibility issue mentioned earlier.

[edgmatt]

Nah.  You have stuff to read right in front of you, and it's easily verifiable.  If he says something that's wrong, or you don't agree with what he said, say so.  But don't ignore what he wrote up and just say he's wrong cause he's been wrong before.  That's poor.

You can google any amount of pretty much any speech Pres Biden has given since he became president, and it's very, very obvious the man is having cognitive issues, whether it be just senility or alzheimers or dementia or something else.  It's well beyond "stumbling through a sentence or two" or any sort of thing you can attribute to any previous President.

And it doesn't matter *at all* if Crunch was just as critical about Trump, or Obama, or anyone else.  Pres Biden's mental state has exactly zero to do with Crunch's political leanings, or bias's.

"If Trumps communication idiosyncrasy's didn't bother Crunch Biden's should either. "   - bad logic, bad arguing.
"But Crunch has been pushing the dementia angle hard, and by now everyone probably just automatically pushes back against him.  This goes back to that credibility issue mentioned earlier."  - maybe he's been right all along.  Stop automatically pushing back and read what's at hand.
"Glad to see you finally got around to reading Nineteen Eighty-Four, since you obviously hadn't read the book during the Trump years."  - bad arguing.  Google logical fallacy's please.

"He selectively quoted the man.
Crunch gave us a bunch of sound bites without attribution."  - attribution to what?  Context isn't important when pointing to the man's potential cognitive problems.  Unless he made up the quotes which would be easily verifiable, the proof is right there in the pudding.  President Biden struggles to put together a full sentence or a coherent sentence.  And it's not like this is out of thin air; President Biden's mental health has been something of a question for some time, and not just by Crunch.

[Fenring]

Gotta say, as strange and idiosyncratic as Trump's sentence structure is, back to back it was more galling to listen to Biden speak than Trump in the debates. That was one of the few times we got to hear both in close proximity, and it was very difficult to listen to all around.

[Crunch]

Gold Medal for mental gymnastics on this web site.

It's beyond incredible. We have Biden, on video, fondling the girl. We have the girl talking about it and how he pinched her nipple. What more do we need?

How is it that undeniable video evidence showing the act coupled with the victim's statement and the reaction is "assuming this is true and that's a big assumption"? It's unhinged, literally some form of mental breakdown bordering on psychosis.

[Wayward Son]

You can google any amount of pretty much any speech Pres Biden has given since he became president, and it's very, very obvious the man is having cognitive issues, whether it be just senility or alzheimers or dementia or something else.  It's well beyond "stumbling through a sentence or two" or any sort of thing you can attribute to any previous President.

Sorry, no it's not very obvious, or even a little.

I listened to a bit of Biden's town hall on CNN, and although he wasn't the sharpest speaker I'd heard, and rambled a bit like an typical grandpa, it was quite obvious he knew what he was talking about and had intelligently thought about the subjects.  For instance, he was wise enough to say, after mentioning numbers, to say "don't quote me on that."  He knew he may not have remembered the numbers exactly, and didn't want everyone jumping on his case for misquoting the number.

That is not the behavior of a man in the throws of Alzheimer's, dementia or senility.

You can't deny cherrypicked quotes are inaccurate.  But you can question the conclusion of someone who relies on such quotes, who is strongly biased against the person, and whose judgement has been shown to be questionable in the past (as in Crunch's post where he said a trans woman in a private spa shows that trans people will be revealing themselves to children, a ridiculous, offensive post for which he still owes us an apology.) 

Yes, Biden stumbles sometimes.  And you can make quite a list of them.  But, overall, it is obvious he still has his faculties.  And he continues to have enough sense not to brag about passing a dementia test again and again and again, as a previous President did... 

[Crunch]

"My ass has been wiped". Yeah, just a, you know, a thing.

[Wayward Son]

Do you even know what you're talking about, Crunch? 

[rightleft22]

Nah.  You have stuff to read right in front of you, and it's easily verifiable.  If he says something that's wrong, or you don't agree with what he said, say so.  But don't ignore what he wrote up and just say he's wrong cause he's been wrong before.  That's poor.

The point was that Crunch wasn't credible in his concern over Biden's mental cognition as he batted away any such worries expressed about Trumps mental cognition.

To be fair you have a point with regards to the concern itself. I watched the first 30 min of the town hall and for the first 5 min I did wonder if Biden was having a Gray moment. He wasn't relaxed and his stutter issue was coming into play. I anticipated someone bringing it up as I'm sure it would have been brought up it it was Trump.
 
My position on the issue of cognition is that if medical team assess either Trump or Biden as having mental issues I would expect them both to stand down and retire.

Having Crunch make make such a finding on Biden's mental state when he had not issue with Trumps 'gray moments'.... nope... he has no credibly and only comes off as awhataboutism hypocrite.

[ScottF]

Trump said all kinds of stupid, ridiculous things but it's silly to equate what's clearly cognitive decline to stuttering or "he's always been like that".

I'm no Biden fan but if I was, I would admit/agree he's in cognitive decline but say I'd rather have a well-intentioned and properly oriented person who's on the decline than a quick-witted psychopath.

[TheDrake]

Making a cognitive assessment requires looking at all of the persons interactions. You can't commit someone as incompetent based on one bad clumsy incoherent ramble, or even two.

Charges that bringing up Trump are spot on, if we're talking about Bidens competence, Trump is irrelevant.

So if we look at his past 8 interactions in an unstructured public forum, what will we find? I'm assuming very little because this one is getting passed around so much and I haven't seen other ones.

Is he drooling and incoherent in his cabinet meetings, security briefings, and the rest of his schedule, but every one of the people involved are just going along with it? Is that the claim?

[Fenring]

I watched the first 30 min of the town hall and for the first 5 min I did wonder if Biden was having a Gray moment. He wasn't relaxed and his stutter issue was coming into play. I anticipated someone bringing it up as I'm sure it would have been brought up it it was Trump.

It's fine to acknowledge that someone can have a stutter and that being tired can make it worse. But in Biden's case if his speech problems are really stutter-related (as opposed to cognitive) then wouldn't that mean he's tired an awful lot? And isn't that a problem for the POTUS? I've never heard him speak and be sharp, ever.

That being said, I can't say I know exactly in what manner Biden's stutter presents, but I've known people with stutters, and the speech slurs I hear from him frequently aren't stuttering. Or at least, not in any form I can intelligibly identify. Not to be all suspicious and stuff, but a history of stuttering would kind of be a decent cover for someone actually slurring words due to cognitive decline, wouldn't it? Then you could write off any speech issues straight away. Not saying I know any of this for a fact, but it's kind of convenient that he has this excuse given that IMO his occasional problems forming coherent sentences would otherwise be kind of alarming.

[msquared]

Biden is a life long stutterer.

https://www.stutteringtreatment.org/blog/yes-joe-biden-is-a-person-who-stutters

A few seconds of research can find this.  I thought it was well known. Just like James Earl Jones has a stutter.

[cherrypoptart]

It's not that he's stuttering. It's that his words are clear as day and they make no sense.

"If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many pancakes fit in a doghouse? None! Cause Ice cream doesn't have bones! Come on, man!"

Okay he didn't actually say that but it's going the rounds as a meme about his cognitive decline and it makes as much sense as some things he does say. Someone nailed it with a good representation there.

[cherrypoptart]

And if he did what it looks like he did and what that little girl apparently says he did in that video then that is sexual assault on a child which would make Uncle Joe our first openly pedophile President. And it was in public on camera so you don't get more open than that. If he didn't pinch her it's still inappropriate touching. I wouldn't say he's a pedo in that case but he's still off. But if he pinched her then game over. Why more people especially #metoo Democrats aren't all over this to figure out exactly what happened is a mystery, or would be anyway if too many people, yes on both sides, didn't always put party and power above principles. But with a sexual assault like that, if he really pinched her there, it needs to be investigated and in cases like that it's my understanding that it doesn't matter if the child or even the parents don't want to press charges. The government can step in and press charges regardless. In this case it would be Congress that would have to do it. Of course they are Democrats and Biden is one of them so there we go. But I mean we hear about how there is a power-clique of pedophiles and people say that's just conspiracy theory stuff but we had Jeffrey Epstein which proved it was true but that was just the tip of the iceberg. Kavanaugh went through the grinder for less. Joe shouldn't get a pass because he's President. He should be held to an even higher standard.

I couldn't tell conclusively by the video but professionals should be able to, one way or another.

I can understand why the child is afraid though. Biden is no Clinton but they walk in the same circles. She really would be in danger and not just from Biden or his people but even more than that from his supporters.

[Fenring]

Biden is a life long stutterer.

https://www.stutteringtreatment.org/blog/yes-joe-biden-is-a-person-who-stutters

A few seconds of research can find this.  I thought it was well known. Just like James Earl Jones has a stutter.

Except that stuttering does not make you sound mentally confused. If he was stuttering then he'd know exactly what he wanted to say but have trouble getting it out. Every person I've heard with a stutter sounds completely lucid, even though the flow of their sentences is obviously compromised. One professional voice user I knew who had a very bad stutter would essentially pause in a word, and the thought would remain in freeze-frame until he could get it out, but the thought was clear as day. And this was a fellow around as old as Biden. Also, James Earl Jones speaks extremely clearly, so he was a really poor choice for a comparison.

[Wayward Son]

Let's be clear about one thing on this thread.  We're not debating whether Biden has cognitive decline or not.

Cognitive decline may start at 45, or as early as the late 20s.  So a man in his late 70's has it.  So did Trump.  So did George H.W. Bush.  And we know that Ronald Reagan had significant decline in his last year in office.

So the only question is whether he currently has or is having a significant decline or not.  Any other argument is clouding the subject.

[Crunch]

At a media event today, Biden was handed a note saying there was something on his chin. He read the note, wiped his face with his hand then looked directly at it in the palm of his hand. And then, he ate it. This dude had something stuck to his face and ate it. You know what we saw here, right? Coprophagia and Pica in Individuals with Mild to Moderate Dementia and Mixed (Iron Deficiency and Macrocytic) Anemia

Now we know why he came out and told everyone his ass had been wiped. 

[Wayward Son]

You're still telling that "my ass has been wiped" lie, Crunch.  Boy, you never learn... 

Oh, yeah, when are you going to apologize for misleading us about trans in spa bathrooms.  That one was truly scummy, and you really need to apologize to all of us for that one. 

[msquared]

Crunch follows the Trump school. You are never wrong, you never loose.  The candidates you support never loose and even if they do, at least a Republican was elected, even if it was one Trump did not support, that does not matter, he does not loose. Trump is all about 0 Sum Gain.

[cherrypoptart]

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-says-house-burned-wife-214922899.html

I just thought this was a really nice story that would have been even nicer during the campaign.

Maybe the media will start revealing more about the real Joe Biden as they see he is unlikely to win if he runs again and they want to set Harris up to take his place.

The hard part is trying to distinguish between the stories in which he is just outright knowingly lying and the stories which feature his senility getting the better of him, and which ones might have a bit of both in play.

[rightleft22]

The hard part is trying to distinguish between the stories in which he is just outright knowingly lying and the stories which feature his senility getting the better of him, and which ones might have a bit of both in play.

If the last 6 years taught us anything, such argument or statement only expose's one as a hypocrite. As a society do we really care about lying or leaders that present a "stable" personality.
It the lying 20's after all, character truth and reality don't matter.  We'll pretend it does but that's a lie as well.

[LetterRip]

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-says-house-burned-wife-214922899.html

I just thought this was a really nice story that would have been even nicer during the campaign.

He stated,

And I know, having had a house burn down with my wife in it — she got out safely, God willing — that having a significant portion of it burn, I can tell: 10 minutes makes a hell of a difference."

Slightly awkward phrasing with immediate clarification - obviously dementia (major eyeroll).  Can you tell how moronic and desperate you sound?

If you are concerned about exaggeration (lightening struck and cuased a fire that destroyed his kitchen, rather than 'burning down' the house) - fair enough.  It may not even be actual exaggeration but rather the faulty way our memory works in that they can amplify traumatic events with repeated access.

[TheDrake]

I find it interesting how suddenly interested conservatives became about the embellishment of stories when they noticed Biden was doing it. Considering the guy they backed bragged on winning things he never attended, money he never made, deals he never finished, the greatest economy ever, and that Washington's continental army took over airports.

[wmLambert]

Gotta say, as strange and idiosyncratic as Trump's sentence structure is, back to back it was more galling to listen to Biden speak than Trump in the debates. That was one of the few times we got to hear both in close proximity, and it was very difficult to listen to all around.

Actually, Trump speaks in the vernacular and is more easily understood than most politicians. You can act the elitist and pretend he is inept - but he is treasured by the masses as a clear-speaker who is both entertaining and humorous. Biden is full of mockery and condescension. ...And lies.

[Wayward Son]

Again, any person who admires and believes Donald J. Trump has no business criticizing anyone else for lying.  You obviously have no sense of truthfulness in other people. 

[rightleft22]

Gotta say, as strange and idiosyncratic as Trump's sentence structure is, back to back it was more galling to listen to Biden speak than Trump in the debates. That was one of the few times we got to hear both in close proximity, and it was very difficult to listen to all around.

Actually, Trump speaks in the vernacular and is more easily understood than most politicians. You can act the elitist and pretend he is inept - but he is treasured by the masses as a clear-speaker who is both entertaining and humorous. Biden is full of mockery and condescension. ...And lies.

Biden is difficult to listen to due to his stutter mitigation process not so much as what he has to say.

Trump didn't make sense most of the time often contradicting himself within a few sentences. His use truthful hyperbole (lies IMO or Bull Stuff) is a intentional strategy of obfuscation. So that he and his sycophant's followers can argue that he never said what he said unless he said it.  It is at one level entertaining and even humorous if he were a comedian. Not so much as a Leader

I personally don't need my leaders to be funny or entertaining. I want them to know what they are doing, good communicators and know how to work with others to get the job done.
 

[wmLambert]

Gotta say, as strange and idiosyncratic as Trump's sentence structure is, back to back it was more galling to listen to Biden speak than Trump in the debates. That was one of the few times we got to hear both in close proximity, and it was very difficult to listen to all around.

Not difficult except for the poor performance of the moderation. Face it. Reagan was heralded as "The Great Communicator." Trumo communicates almost as well, but speaks more in the vernacular, so to speak. It's as if he was holding a direct conversation with friends when he speaks. He assumes you have the brains to understand what he is talking about without the Washington doublespeak. Biden does not have the ability to speak to the common people, even though he proclaims that that is who he is. He is always telling about his interactions with non-politicians,  but rarely even makes sense as he does so. Yeah, we heard both of them, but Biden was always helped by the moderation, while Trump was interrupted or told to "follow the script." We now know the Hunter laptop was certainly a valid issue, but Biden did lie about it, while Trump was shut down for telling the truth.

There was never a point where Trump was unable to communicate both effectively and honestly. The constant drumbeat saying Trump is an inept speaker is as off-base as claiming Hunter's laptop was totally vetted and revealed to be a Russian fake.

[wmLambert]

...Biden is difficult to listen to due to his stutter mitigation process not so much as what he has to say.

Trump didn't make sense most of the time often contradicting himself within a few sentences. His use truthful hyperbole (lies IMO or Bull Stuff) is a intentional strategy of obfuscation. So that he and his sycophant's followers can argue that he never said what he said unless he said it.  It is at one level entertaining and even humorous if he were a comedian. Not so much as a Leader

I personally don't need my leaders to be funny or entertaining. I want them to know what they are doing, good communicators and know how to work with others to get the job done.

Biden is never funny. He hasn't mastered the George W. Bush timing, nor understands basic humor needs to be based on fact - not falsity. Apologists for Biden act like his communication is a studied attempt to create strategic obfuscation. It's not. It is simply incompetent speaking skills. His stuttering is an excuse - not a cause.

His mental problems are a concern, but his ability to lie and dis-inform goes all the way back to his early Senate speeches being stolen from others. His plagiarism is documented all the way back to his school papers being stolen. That he is now able to repeat his advisors' instructions without looking morally bothered is not arguable.

[TheDeamon]

Not difficult except for the poor performance of the moderation. Face it. Reagan was heralded as "The Great Communicator." Trumo communicates almost as well, but speaks more in the vernacular, so to speak. It's as if he was holding a direct conversation with friends when he speaks. He assumes you have the brains to understand what he is talking about without the Washington doublespeak. Biden does not have the ability to speak to the common people, even though he proclaims that that is who he is. He is always telling about his interactions with non-politicians,  but rarely even makes sense as he does so. Yeah, we heard both of them, but Biden was always helped by the moderation, while Trump was interrupted or told to "follow the script." We now know the Hunter laptop was certainly a valid issue, but Biden did lie about it, while Trump was shut down for telling the truth.

There was never a point where Trump was unable to communicate both effectively and honestly. The constant drumbeat saying Trump is an inept speaker is as off-base as claiming Hunter's laptop was totally vetted and revealed to be a Russian fake.

Uh, having watched a few Reagan speeches in the past couple years, Reagan is in an entirely different League than Donald Trump. Reagan understood boundaries and had a concept of social propriety that he held himself to. Which meant Reagan  "had a filter," Trump has no filter. Trump doesn't give a *bleep* about propriety and certainly doesn't hold himself to it--even complained when others tried to do so.

Yes Trump can establish a rapport with his audience in ways no Republican Presidential Candidate has been able to do since Reagan, but that's the extent of his similarity to Reagan.

Reagan was funny without being mean. Trump is simply mean, and the only people who found him to be funny most of the time were the people who agreed with him. Further, Reagan could take a joke, and was self-depreciating in a lot of his humor--hard for people to get upset about a joke he makes at his own expense. Trump couldn't take a joke if his life depended on it, although I will concede there were [i[limited[/i] occasions where Trump did self-depreciate, but those were exceptions more than the rule.

It's like declaring Jay Leno and David Letterman  were effectively the same because they were both late night talk show hosts and comedians.

[msquared]

TheDeamon

For once I think your analysis is spot on about Trump/Reagan. Especially the part about Trump's thin skin.

[wmLambert]

...Reagan was funny without being mean. Trump is simply mean, and the only people who found him to be funny most of the time were the people who agreed with him.

Totally wrong. Trump is not mean, but doesn't allow himself to be libeled and lied about. In his books, he explained how he responds to unfair attacks. He responds in kind by correcting the lie and labelling the liar as a liar. He does not follow the DC "decorum" that insists you can't call the kettle black.

As on point is the strategy that Reagan had. He did not lash out at the media directly, because he recognized they would slant anything he said and never apologize for lying. Instead, he was able to go around the media and speak directly to the people. In his term, the President speaking was news, so he had an open mike to respond without the by-blows from the complicit media. The media smartened up after Bush 43 unsuccessfully tried to emulate Reagan and not respond to lies. Trump realized the complicit media would not publicize Trump as the President, so he found social media to help him along. When Big Tech shut off even that end run, he could only speak to those who came to his rallies. If you ever noticed, CNN, MSNBC, and the other complicit news never passed along his clear-speaking to the public. They only heard cherry-picked bits and pieces to make him look bad. If you think otherwise, then consider yourself to be idiot morons who never recognized how you were misled.

Case in point about Trump being "mean". Over Thanksgiving, just a few weeks ago, he went overseas to meet and have his holiday with our troops, while Biden had dinner with Billionaire fundraisers. How many ever knew that difference because of the Democrat media shills?

[Fenring]

Trump is not mean

lolwut

You should get this etched into your gravestone, a testament to the ages.

[TheDrake]

Which unfair attack prompted Trump to imply that Heidi Cruz is ugly?

[wmLambert]

Trump is not mean

lolwut

You should get this etched into your gravestone, a testament to the ages.

The idea of meanness is a straw-man that the Left has built from scratch. Think about it. For his entire career, Democrats courted him to run for office as one of them. When he came down the golden staircase and proclaimed he was running for the GOP - everything changed, Suddenly, he became mean, and no longer sharp-witted and funny. The only thing that changed was the media's portrayal - not his behavior. Suddenly, the many Democrat compliments as an humanitarian who helped those in need dried up. The same Dems who awarded the same humanitarian medal on the same stage as Rosa Parks and Mohammad Ali Suddenly called him a racist and White Supremacist.

Every Democrt has one message to engrave on their headstones: "The Ends Justifies the Means."

[TheDrake]

Ooh my, delusional it is, then. The media has always been generally unfavorable in portrayals of Trump. This is according to Trump himself.

Trump made his first appearance on 60 Minutes in 1985. He complained to Mike Wallace about the press: “I believe they make me out to be something more sinister than I really am.”

Nothing sudden at all.

[wmLambert]

Which unfair attack prompted Trump to imply that Heidi Cruz is ugly?

I don't know what incident caused that rejoinder. I do know how Melania was denigrated constantly. Michelle Obama was on almost every magazine cover, even with her unsuccessful styles. The clothing brands that Melania wore were canceled to the point they didn't want her to thank them for their work that made her so beautiful. No magazines would dare to put her picture on or in their mags for fear of what vengeful Democrats would do to them. Do I need to remind you of the onslaught against her wanting to divorce him while she was in the hospital for kidney surgery? Or when she came home after that surgery and not anyone in the complicit media mentioned that their claims were lies?

What universe do you live in, when your memory is so selective and is only based on what a complicit anti-Trump media told you?

[Fenring]

The idea of meanness is a straw-man that the Left has built from scratch.

Um...did you watch the 2016 primaries? If you don't think his repeated insults against Jeb were mean, then I don't think that word means that you think it does. Not contrary to some anti-Trumpers, I'm not willing to attach every possible negative epithet to him purely on principle, nor do I think he's the price of Hades. I even find him funny on occasion, even though they're often the laughs you regret enjoying. But to say he's not mean...damn! That's chutzpah. I don't think he's dumb, or unintelligible actually. But one thing he is, is not nice to people who are in his way. There's a certain show biz appeal to that, maybe, kind of like how you enjoy watching Sonny rough people up in The Godfather. But he ain't nice...

[wmLambert]

The idea of meanness is a straw-man that the Left has built from scratch.

Um...did you watch the 2016 primaries? If you don't think his repeated insults against Jeb were mean, then I don't think that word means that you think it does. Not contrary to some anti-Trumpers, I'm not willing to attach every possible negative epithet to him purely on principle, nor do I think he's the price of Hades. I even find him funny on occasion, even though they're often the laughs you regret enjoying. But to say he's not mean...damn! That's chutzpah. I don't think he's dumb, or unintelligible actually. But one thing he is, is not nice to people who are in his way. There's a certain show biz appeal to that, maybe, kind of like how you enjoy watching Sonny rough people up in The Godfather. But he ain't nice...

The strategy of calling Jeb Bush "Low Energy" was very successful. It resonated with the public and broomed Jeb from any hopes of another Bush candidacy. But of course, the Bush family and all anti-Trumpsters pronounced that strategy as mean. Did you recall what Jeb said about Trump prior to that? I don't either, because Jeb was never the great communicator that Trump was. Do you recall that all the broadcast talking heads were laughing that Trump was even on the panel of contenders? Do you not understand that that, in itself, was a mean strategy? Trump was able to reverse all that disinformative attacks on him with a few strong words that were effective. Anyone with a brain knew his tactic was not to be a doormat, but to respond twice as hard as his attackers. But please realize that strategy was retaliatory - not aimed at honorable debaters. If you never heard the initial attacks - just the reaction from Trump - then you define yourself as only getting your information from the complicit media.

The tactic that Trump espoused and published in his autobiographies were also use by the Democrats. They invested millions of dollars to set up focus groups and think tanks to develop talking points and clichés that could be used against their opponents. A proving example is the term "Gravitas." Do you remember that when Bush 43 was running against Kerry, that the think tanks put out the "Gravitas" term - and every Left-leaning newsman, entertainer, or politician used that in every other sentenced uttered for almost a full week -until the polls came back and told them people thought Bush 43 had more "gravitas" than Kerry did? The next day, the word vanished from the airwaves. The difference is that Trump can think on his feet and do what these think tanks and focus groups were paid millions of dollars to do. Their only recourse was to label him "mean" when they just got their noses out of joint for being so ineffectual. After the public got wind of how effective Trump was at defining his opponents, they clamored for him to do more. Warren was "Pocahontas." Little Rocket Man... Animal Assad... Slippery James Comey... Wacky Omarosa... Crooked Hillary... Lying Ted... Low Energy Jeb... . When he referred to Steve Bannon as "Sloppy Steve Bannon, it was in reaction to his former campaign chief and advisor going to Michael Wolff, and giving an interview that gave an untruthful and disinformative book legs. In a very effective Tweet, Trump said: "Little Adam Schiff, who is desperate to run for higher office, is one of the biggest liars and leakers in Washington, right up there with Comey, Warner, Brennan and Clapper!" Trump wrote in February 2018. "Adam leaves closed committee hearings to illegally leak confidential information. Must be stopped!" Who was mean here? Trump or Schiff? Has the media ever held Shiff to his word that he had proof that Trump was a stooge for the Russians? There is mean (What Schiff did) and effectiveness (What Trump has done.)

Once again... Trump was revered by the Democrats before he ran and chose the GOP. The thing that changed was not Trump, but the Left.

[TheDrake]

It's actually easy enough to find out what set off Trump's torrent against Bush.

He never says Donald’s Trump’s name, but former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s first television ad of the campaign is clearly taking aim at the real estate mogul who is atop the polls.

“If you want more D.C. politicians or more self-promoters, you’ve got options,” Bush says into the camera during the 30-second ad that his aides sent reporters on Tuesday. Instead, Bush pitches himself as an outsider to Washington and a proven two-term Governor. “Anyone can talk,” Bush says. “I’ve delivered.”

This was when Trump took to twitter with the "low energy" responses. Prior to that in debates, Jeb targeted Trump's lack of political experience. The same type of attack Clinton used against Obama, but Obama didn't respond like a petulant child and begin with a criticism of Hillary's appearance.

Face it, Trump responds to even the slightest criticism with an all out mean-spirited character attack. Regardless of the validity of the criticism. His responses have been more memorable simply because of their base meanness.

But forget politics, he called Alicia Machado "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeping". I don't recall her ever saying anything negative about him prior to his mean-spirited attack.

[wmLambert]

It's actually easy enough to find out what set off Trump's torrent against Bush.

He never says Donald’s Trump’s name, but former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s first television ad of the campaign is clearly taking aim at the real estate mogul who is atop the polls.

“If you want more D.C. politicians or more self-promoters, you’ve got options,” Bush says into the camera during the 30-second ad that his aides sent reporters on Tuesday. Instead, Bush pitches himself as an outsider to Washington and a proven two-term Governor. “Anyone can talk,” Bush says. “I’ve delivered.”

This was when Trump took to twitter with the "low energy" responses. Prior to that in debates, Jeb targeted Trump's lack of political experience. The same type of attack Clinton used against Obama, but Obama didn't respond like a petulant child and begin with a criticism of Hillary's appearance.

Face it, Trump responds to even the slightest criticism with an all out mean-spirited character attack. Regardless of the validity of the criticism. His responses have been more memorable simply because of their base meanness.

But forget politics, he called Alicia Machado "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeping". I don't recall her ever saying anything negative about him prior to his mean-spirited attack.

"The same type of attack Clinton used against Obama, but Obama didn't respond like a petulant child and begin with a criticism of Hillary's appearance."

Except for the fact that Obama already had a complicit media on his side. Obama was oblivious to Hillary and any other contender. He had the media and knew how to exploit it. There were enough outside Hillary attackers to take the fight to her, without Obama getting his hands dirty.

If you don't remember Hillary and every other Democrat laughing at the very idea of Trump running, then you weren't around back then. The media was AWOL and never vetted Obama at all. His school records and personal scandals went unnoticed. He didn't need to attack Hillary. He was anointed already.

[msquared]

So at the Press Conference Biden took questions for over an hour and even took questions from Newmax and Fox (he did not whine about those Networks being against him like some other previous Presidents have whined about other networks being against him).

https://news.yahoo.com/bidens-news-conference-takes-abrupt-004126069.html

I heard a good portion of it and thought he did a fine job.

[cherrypoptart]

An AM radio station played the part with Biden basically denying that he was saying people were on the same side as racists if they opposed the voting rights bill and he didn't sound like someone in their right mind. He denied the implications of what he said while making the implications quite clear once again, being against his voting rights bill means you are on the side of racists. I don't see how anyone could take what he said any other way and yet he refuses to admit that he meant what he said.



And though his failure to admit to mistakes with the pullout from Afghanistan didn't say anything about his mental fitness, it does call into question his humanity. I'd like to see a reporter ask him if he knew things would play out exactly like they did would he do the exact same thing again anyway? His responses to his abject failure with the pullout and the humanitarian crisis we are witnessing indicate the answer would not only be yes, but yes and he's proud of it.

[alai]

An AM radio station played the part with Biden basically denying that he was saying people were on the same side as racists if they opposed the voting rights bill and he didn't sound like someone in their right mind. He denied the implications of what he said while making the implications quite clear once again, being against his being against his voting rights bill means you are on the side of racists. I don't see how anyone could take what he said any other way and yet he refuses to admit that he meant what he said.

Well, that was clear and concise.  Vague paraphrase of first statement, vague paraphrase of supposed inconsistent statement, standard hostile conclusion bang in line with your own preconceptions.  If I may quote from your head of state and commander-in-chief -- respect the office! -- in response to a decidedly cherryesque line of questioning from Newsmax:-

"Next."

And though his failure to admit to mistakes with the pullout from Afghanistan didn't say anything about his mental fitness, it does call into question his humanity.

Do they call into question TFG's?  Or are we just taking it for granted he's the actual antichrist, and so the "humanity" ship sailed a long time again?

Not so much a whatabout, more of a calibration test for any remaining degree of being in touch with reality.

[TheDrake]

What's an AM radio station? Not knowing what quote you're referring to, I can't comment coherently.

Biden speaks from experience on people who sided with segregationists.

[Lloyd Perna]

Reporter:  "Speaking of voting rights legislation, if this isn’t passed, do you still believe the upcoming election will be fairly conducted and its results will be legitimate?”

Biden: “It all depends on whether or not we’re able to make the case to the American people that some of this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election,”

Other Reporter: "A moment ago, you were asked whether or not you believed that we would have free and fair elections in 2022 if some of these state legislatures reform their voting protocols, You said that it depends. Do you think that they would in any way be illegitimate?”

Biden: “Oh, yeah, I think it easily could be illegitimate,”
“I’m not saying it’s going to be legit. The increase and the prospect of its being illegitimate is in direct proportion to not being able to get these reforms passed.”

How does Biden get to say the next election might not be 'legitimate' after he (and many others on the left) spent an entire year tearing down anyone (not me) who said the last one might not be?

[cherrypoptart]

The pattern is obvious. If they win it's a legitimate election, free, fair, and above reproach; so far above reproach that questioning the results of the election is sedition, treason, and of course as always racist.

Now if they lose, then the election integrity was compromised and it was stolen, like Trump and the Russians colluding together did to Hillary. In that case, undermining our democracy for four years is the height of patriotism and the traitors are the ones who beat the Democrats. Oh, and of course that makes them racists too, just like everyone who doesn't support Biden's plan to stack the deck in favor of Democrats. Of course, that's not what he said or even what he meant, at least according to him at his press conference, even though it's exactly what he said and he meant it too and denying it makes him look like he's losing his marbles.

[Lloyd Perna]

It's not just Biden that feels this way.  On CNN the Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn doubled down on it.

Kasie: "You concerned that without these voting rights bills the election results won’t be legitimate?”
 
Clyburn: “I’m absolutely concerned about that."

[NobleHunter]

There's a difference between saying the election is illegitimate because of delusions of voter fraud and saying it's illegitimate because of actual voter suppression.

[Lloyd Perna]

There's a difference between saying the election is illegitimate because of delusions of voter fraud and saying it's illegitimate because of actual voter suppression.

There's a difference between delusions of voter suppression and actual voter suppression.

[NobleHunter]

Yes there is. However, the GOP has admitted to engaging in voter suppression so the difference between actual and delusional suppression is moot.