Biden will remain president thought the remainder of his term in office unless he resigns or is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. There's another possible path whereby his cabinet finds he's unfit, but this path is untested.
Why then don't these politicians put on their big boy pants and get it done.
Because you think Biden's "cognitively impaired"? To me, though he seems to have much lower energy than four years ago, his thinking seems fine.
The US is in crisis between the flood crisis...
Clearly you feel Biden is handling this crisis poorly, but where are you getting your information from? I know Trump is claiming that not even the governor of Georgia can get Biden on the phone, but the actual governor himself says he's spoken to Biden several times. You wouldn't be listening to Trump, would you?
...and the ports being shut down,...
Yes, we know, the strike has been going on a whole three days now. Biden says he won't intervene and that the strike should be settled by collective bargaining. Biden administration officials had been meeting with union leaders and urging them to negotiate right up until the strike began. What do you think Biden should be doing?
...and the world is in crisis in the Middle east and the Ukraine and the rest of the world is likely to get drawn into this as well.
I disagree with Biden's handling on both Israel and Ukraine. He's given Netanyahu way too much leash and Ukraine not nearly enough. But it makes no sense to push for the removal of a president simply because you disagree with his policies.
Ya, they came to the conclusion that he couldn't win the election because he was clearly cognitively impaired.
Who is this "they" that concluded from the debate that Biden is cognitively impaired? Are "they" applying the term "cognitively impaired" in a clinical fashion or as an overall label for someone older? Do "they" think that maybe such determinations should be made based upon neurological testing? Are "they" aware that cognitive decline (forgetfulness, trouble changing tasks, etc.) is a normal part of aging and that it takes considerable progression before it can be labeled "cognitively impaired"? Are "they" comparing Biden's often very comprehensible statements made in the course of his day-to-day activities with those of Trump's often meandering missives as he campaigns?
You're free to believe that Biden is cognitively impaired. That is your right. But many, including those who saw the debate, don't see it the same way.
I think what many saw in the debate was an old man who is finding the demands of office increasingly challenging and who was overburdened once the demands of campaigning were added.
I think many also saw someone who would not be up to the challenges of the presidency for an additional four years but that the next four months wouldn't be much of a problem.
Here is a YouTube video of a Biden press conference from four days ago about Hurricane Helene. I've cued it up to where he responds to several questions. He seems old, not "cognitively impaired":
Same old name calling and labelling. Tell me, where have I been arrogant? I asked a question...
You began with a "Are you still beating your wife" type of question and then continued in a pattern consistent with that. Here's your question from Message 1:
What I want to know is why the Democratic party came to the conclusion that President Biden was cognitively impaired and should step down as the candidate but, leave him still in office.
When did the Democratic party conclude Biden was cognitively impaired? You never say, and you cannot say, because it's not true.
And as PaulK said, you chose the most intemperate message to respond to and then characterized it as typical of all the responses when that is definitely not true. And you didn't respond to 11 of the 17 responses to you, most of them very reasonable and temperate, but you ignored them anyway. If you want a temperate discussion then you might try responding to those.
Your initial assertion was challenged, you were unable to back it up but stuck to your guns anyway, then you got raked across the coals for that approach by one or two responses. That can happen when you can't support what you assert but keep asserting it anyway.
And the opinion piece you cited doesn't support your position. It argues that Biden should submit to cognitive testing, not that the Democratic party concluded that Biden is cognitively impaired, or that Biden should be removed from office. If argues that Biden's debate performance raises questions, not that it provides answers.
I don't know whether Biden is cognitively impaired or not which is the same for all of us. I gather that he won't get a current test for it.
That's not how you began this thread. Here is sentence 1 of Message 1, your post that began this thread where you said the "Democratic party" (not some members of the Democratic party, as you later tried to claim you said, but the actual Democratic party) had concluded that Biden was cognitively impaired and should step down, yet they let him stay in office despite this:
What I want to know is why the Democratic party came to the conclusion that President Biden was cognitively impaired and should step down as the candidate but, leave him still in office.
You've since been trying to morph this into something different, a mere concern and a desire for cognitive testing. Had you actually begun that way I would have replied differently.
But you didn't, so I couldn't, and I've found your subsequent dissembling and recasting objectionable.
To deny that Biden's mental acuity wasn't an issue lacks any credibility.
I haven't memorized the thread, so when did it morph from an assertion of cognitive impairment to one of a decline in mental acuity, and how are you defining mental acuity anyway. If you mean it in terms of the ability to think clearly and accurately then I think Biden is fine. If you mean it in terms of mental alacrity and rapid and accurate recall of facts then I think Biden's mental acuity has declined while president. Does Biden seem able to successfully carry out the duties of his office for another three or four months, especially now that he's unburdened with having to campaign? I think that's the question you should have begun with.
What I want to know is why the Democratic party came to the conclusion that President Biden was cognitively impaired and should step down as the candidate but, leave him still in office.
Prior to him stepping down that were many in the Democratic party that questioned his mental fitness as evidenced in thew link above and that link isn't an outlier. So, the question still stands.
Is "mental fitness" a synonym for "cognitive impairment" now?
When did the Democratic party conclude Biden was cognitively impaired? You never say, and you cannot say, because it's not true.
Obviously the Democratic party, like any political party is not one voice.
Oh, is that what you meant when you said, "The Democratic party came to the conclusion that President Biden was cognitively impaired," in Message 1. However did I misinterpret that.
And as PaulK said, you chose the most intemperate message to respond to and then characterized it as typical of all the responses when that is definitely not true. And you didn't respond to 11 of the 17 responses to you, most of them very reasonable and temperate, but you ignored them anyway. If you want a temperate discussion then you might try responding to those.
I have been here long enough to know how common that is. Many times I, or others, have posted either a belief or an opinion and have been labelled a liar as opposed to just calling us wrong. Go back and look at the posts. Even the post trying to defend an earlier post called me arrogant but failed to give an example.
I'm sorry you've had such a bad experience here, but I'd be surprised if you didn't have the same experience everywhere after your performance in the Choosing a faith thread.
I, tried to post the question in such a way as to try and be as non-partisan as I could without suggesting whether Trump or Harris is the better choice in the election.
Are you referring to your opening question in Message 1 again? As I said before, it was an "Are you still beating your wife?" style question.
And the opinion piece you cited doesn't support your position. It argues that Biden should submit to cognitive testing, not that the Democratic party concluded that Biden is cognitively impaired, or that Biden should be removed from office. If argues that Biden's debate performance raises questions, not that it provides answers.
If there are questions raised about the mental decline of a sitting US President don't you think that it should be verified one way or the other?
In politics questions are raised about everything all the time, often with political motivations, so generalize your question: If there are questions raised about something or someone in government, don't you think it should be verified one way or the other.
For example, questions have been raised about whether Trump is a racist, misogynist autocrat with delusions of dictatorship and a list of grievances who would end democracy as we know it. Don't you think it should be verified one way or the other?
And isn't that a far more important question than whether Biden should serve out the last three or four months of his term?
I think many of us are of an age to have experienced what cognitive impairment actually looks like in our parents' generation. I used to have lunch occasionally with the residents of the elderly housing where my mother lived. Some were as sharp as tacks, others couldn't remember their families or what they did for work, others couldn't speak sense about anything, and others seemed to be living in some other world than the one around them.
So I think I know what cognitive impairment looks like, and to me Biden is not cognitively impaired. However, he has definitely lost a step mentally. He pulls out the wrong name or fact more often than he used to. Same for losing his train of thought. His energy level is down. Four years ago he looked old but vigorous. Now he just looks old.
But if you watch his press conferences, an interactive activity as opposed to one where he only has to read from a teleprompter, he seems fine. He's more halting, his answers are brief, but he seems fine. Just old. I posted a video of a recent press conference a few messages ago.
The point again is that I would argue that he was doing badly in the polls because many people saw him as being cognitively impaired.
Can you point to a poll that used the term "cognitively impaired"?
Neither one of us know and we are both expressing our opinion.
I looked pretty hard and couldn't find a poll that employed the term "cognitively impaired," so I don't think I'm only expressing my opinion when I say no such poll was conducted. Polls inquired about the level of concern about Biden's vitality, cognitive health, and his ability to serve another term.
Oh, except for one poll, which did find that most Americans believe Biden should resign the presidency immediately:
quote:A majority of Americans agree that US President Joe Biden should immediately resign presidency, according to a survey conducted by the US public opinion firm Rasmussen Reports.
The survey said that 52% of the polled agreed that if Biden cannot run for a second term, he cannot remain president and "should resign from office now".
Good point. The Democratic membership had no say in it but it was a decision taken by those who hold power in the Democratic party.
I agree that the "Democratic membership had no say," but not that it was "a decision taken by those who hold power in the Democratic party." All the news reports say the same thing, that it was a personal decision made by Biden in consideration of all the advice and feedback he had been given, some public, some private, and in consultation with his family.
My own unevidenced belief is that Biden isn't really calling the shots now anyway. I'm guessing that it is people like Obama and Pelosi.
Why do you think that? Even a Biden in full dementia would seem unlikely to let others siphon off control. Have you ever dealt with a willful dementia patient who's been accustomed to being in control their entire life? I just can't see a modestly compromised Biden ceding control to others. Delegating more, yes, but giving up any control, no.
I agree that the "Democratic membership had no say," but not that it was "a decision taken by those who hold power in the Democratic party." All the news reports say the same thing, that it was a personal decision made by Biden in consideration of all the advice and feedback he had been given, some public, some private, and in consultation with his family.
I'd venture to say that not all the news reports say the same thing.
Find a *news* report saying something different.
Sure that's the position of the democratic party.
No, that's the news.
Don't you think it's a bit odd that he didn't come out and make a formal announcement but through a post on twitter just hours after announcing that he was definitely staying in the race?
I find many, many things about modern administrating and campaigning odd, especially the use of social media. I have no idea what's considered the proper way to release information anymore.
quote:These concerns increased after the first 2024 presidential debate, between Biden and Republican Party candidate Donald Trump on June 27, 2024. Biden's performance was widely criticized, with commentators noting he frequently lost his train of thought and gave meandering answers, had a faltering appearance, spoke with a hoarse voice, and failed to recall statistics or coherently express his opinion on several occasions.[2] Biden subsequently faced calls to withdraw from the race from fellow Democrats[3] and from the editorial boards of major news outlets.[4][5] By July 19, 2024, more than 30 senior Democrats had called for him to withdraw
My account and Wikipedia's say basically the same thing. If you think you see meaningful differences you'll have to point them out. Obviously I expressed things in my own words, just as whoever wrote the Wikipedia account expressed things in theirs. And of course my account, never intended as part of an entry in an on-line encyclopaedia, was more brief and less detailed.
Why do you think that? Even a Biden in full dementia would seem unlikely to let others siphon off control. Have you ever dealt with a willful dementia patient who's been accustomed to being in control their entire life? I just can't see a modestly compromised Biden ceding control to others. Delegating more, yes, but giving up any control, no.
Well, we have no idea what pressure they put on him.
And what conclusions do you draw from this information that we have "no idea" about?
Sure it was Biden's decision but he was under serious pressure to pull out by senior democrats. Without their support the campaign was hopeless and so they left him no real choice but to pull out.
I never offered that link. It must be yours.
If by "no real choice" you mean that Biden couldn't see a path to victory for him, then sure.
The news reports were mainly what the the Democratic released, the rest was all speculation.
Many spoke publicly, but more importantly, when it comes to a choice between actual news and speculation, you're choosing speculation. You can apply the techniques you're using to literally anything. "Doesn't it seem odd to you that..." is the equivalent of Donald Trump's "They're saying..." With this approach no evidence is needed.
And what conclusions do you draw from this information that we have "no idea" about?
I simply conclude that there was so much pressure put on him that re withdrew against his will essentially along the lines of that NBC article. That is simply my opinion from as an interested observer.
I'm not going to read a bare link. If you'd like to make the arguments the article is making in your own words and offer the link as a supporting reference then that's up to you. I suspect it says pretty much the same thing as what I and Wikipedia already said. I read a number of articles at the time, and while they all had their own way of expressing things and their own slant, they all reported the same facts.
Your points and arguments must make sense to you, otherwise you wouldn't be making them, but to me you're coming across just as you did in the Choosing a faith thread, as disingenuously offering speculation and the absence of facts to argue positions that have little to no support.
™ Version 4.2
(1)