Biden Seen as More Likable, Trump as Better Leader
By: Taegan Goddard Leave (Political Wire)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
April 3, 2024 at 3:30 pm EDT By Taegan GoddardLeave a Comment
Gallup: "Many more Americans say Biden is likable than say Trump is (57% to 37%), while Biden retains a smaller advantage on being honest and trustworthy (46% to 35%)."
"Trump has a big edge on leadership — 57% to 38% — the only item he scored better than Biden on in 2020. Trump has gained a modest edge for managing the government (49% to 39%) because of Biden's lower 2024 rating on that item."
"The two candidates are evenly matched on two items that were not asked in 2020 — being intelligent and putting the country's interests ahead of their own political interests. On two others — cares about the needs of people like you (Biden 48%, Trump 42%) and displaying good judgment in a crisis (Trump 45%, Biden 40%) — the differences are not statistically meaningful."
Save to Favorites
Tags
Who is online
417 visitors
We live in a degraded country.
Couldn’t agree more.
Degradation led by triggered resisters and biased mass media
It is disgusting. Just disgusting.
Yep.
I tend to think of it as more deranged than degraded.
It is as if neither of them served as President.
They both have records. That is all voters should need.
Like the January 6th Report.
Trump isn’t the problem. A hopelessly dumbed down populace is the problem, and that’s a much harder thing to fix than a single douchebag wannabe dictator.
Exactly.
That is why we have a degraded country.
Yes, the Department of Education has been a useless beurocracy since the '70s, much like the EPA.
I blame social media and reality tv. Those are the quickest routes to stupidity.
Yep, those two things have done more to ruin our country than anything else.
When do you think we had a historically and politically educated populace and why did we lose it?
I wouldn't go out for a beer with either one
Every time Trump, Biden (or Jean-Pierre) opens their mouth honest and trustworthy goes out the window.
Why would anyone other than a party partisan want to follow a guy who has no clue where he is going?
A sign of a good manager is surrounding himself with good people and listening to them. Biden surrounds himself with people that check a box and Trump surrounds himself with people that he thinks he knows more than they do. They both fail miserably.
Well said. I agree completely. Neither one are worth a plug nickel!
Equating the word "trustworthy" with any of the above mentioned individuals constitutes a huge oxymoron!
If either really cared about uniting the country they would not be running.
True. For those people it is all about money and power and screw the people!
Not shocking at all
Trump is a total jackass of a human being and everyone likes a doddering old man
For many undecided voters, many favor Trump policies but few favor him as a leader, a man or a human being.
While many dislike Biden's policies and programs but acknowledge that he is a good person
Please tell me how a allegedly "good person" can absolutely refuse to recognize and pretty much disown one of his own grandchildren? I don't know about others but I refuse to call that a good person by any stretch of the imagination!
Maybe he doesn't like the little girl's parents.
Good question....
I made my feelings about Trump above fairy clear, but let me expound a bit further. He has zero ethics, morals, or character that make him deserving of a second term and neither does Biden. As I have stated before, I refuse to vote for either one.
The projection is really something.
It sure is. Trying to project Trump not noticing one of his grandkids one time (but there are plenty of pictures with him) with Biden completely ignoring the existence of a grandchild until he was forced is total bullshit
It’s like the fools that try to portray trump as slipping mentally because of a verbal slip. Meanwhile, the guy they voted for has shown signs of dementia even before the election even took place.
'a verbal slip'
defense of the indefensible
beyond all redemption
Dementia (and that includes 'signs of') would be a clinical diagnosis. I doubt you have the credentials to make such a diagnosis and no such clinical diagnosis has been made for either Trump or Biden.
Second, both are too old to run for PotUS and both are making plenty of mental mistakes.
One of them, however, attempted to steal the 2020 election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement. Trump stands alone in history as the only PotUS to have ever engaged in such traitorous behavior.
Beyond that, Trump is a vindictive, unhinged, narcissistic, pathologically lying clown. To have this embarrassment as the voice and face of the USA would be a profound failure on the part of the electorate. Trump is entirely unfit for the presidency.
Biden is a poor choice; Trump, however, should not even be considered.
Projection and denial while Biden constantly makes a fool of himself
He could put it to rest by taking the SLUMS test.
Don’t throw rocks from a glass house because you don’t have the credentials to say he’s mentally fit.
Nope. Showing signs of does not need a clinical diagnosis. Showing signs of tells someone that they might want to get a clinical diagnosis. Interesting that the post tuned into 2 paragraphs about Trump that had nothing to do with the decline of either mental capacity.
Symptoms
Dementia symptoms vary depending on the cause. Common symptoms include:
Cognitive changes
Psychological changes
When to see a doctor
See a health care professional if you or a loved one has memory problems or other dementia symptoms. It's important to determine the cause. Some medical conditions that cause dementia symptoms can be treated.
To a non partisan observer that will probably not vote for either person Trumps mental capability seems to be an order of magnitude better than Bidens.
What a pathetic 'rebuttal'. You ignored my entire commentary and instead toss up a lame strawman. I have never claimed that either are mentally fit for the job. In fact, if you read carefully, my comment that both are too old suggests that I do not think either is mentally up for the challenges of the presidency due to what happens to all of our brains as we age.
Unless you have the training, you can grossly misinterpret the signs you listed.
For example, everyone will occasionally experience the above problems. The determination that this is a sign of dementia is done by professionals.
Stated even more simply, how do you know how to determine if the memory loss is beyond the norm? You do not.
As a non-professional, you can opine that someone does not seem to be sharp, or note that they are making mental mistakes, etc. You are operating way above your pay grade to suggest clinical factors such as dementia.
As "a non partisan observer that will probably not vote for either person" (@4.1.13) you posted a video on Biden yet omitted one for Trump (and there are many out there). Not even a word to the contrary regarding Trump. In fact, you apparently think Trump is firing on all cylinders.
Why would you not vote for Trump? It is obvious why you would not vote for Biden, you ridicule and criticize him routinely. But you seem to think Trump is cognitively fine, so why not vote for him? Do you want Biden to win??
That is a pathetic bullshit rebuttal unworthy of a critical thinker. According to the Mayo clinic above you should seek a doctor if "you or a loved one has memory problems or other dementia symptoms." So if they are "showing signs" of it is time to seek help. They are not saying you need a clinical diagnosis to determine if they are "showing signs" of as you stated.
Yes, the lay person should conduct a professional to see if their observations really are signs of dementia.
See?
I thought I would leave that to you and other like minded folks
Yes, I see a dance.
Have you ever misplaced your phone?
Ever walk somewhere only to forget (at least temporarily) what it was that you were intending to do?
Ever forget someone's name?
Ever get sad, anxious, suspicious?
Ever have a 'brain fart'?
It is important to understand the difference between observations and actual signs of dementia. And then realize that professionals are trained to distinguish an actual sign from an observation in the category.
Leave it to the professionals to make suggestions of dementia.
One doesn’t need a medical degree to recognize dementia. Anyone who has had to deal with it with a friend or family member can easily recognize it.
Any attempt to characterize Biden’s regular behavior as just the occasional “brain fart” is simply ignoring what is right in front of their eyes. The guy clearly has dementia. Regularly confused, persistent memory problems, extreme mood swings, etc.
This is nothing new. The signs were there when he had to hide in his basement for the 2020 election.
One can 'diagnose' anything one desires. But without the training and experience one will make far more mistakes than a professional. (Unless the case is extreme.)
And, of course, blind partisanship will cause one to interpret observations as 'dementia' for the opposing party and remain silent on similar observations for those in their party.
Did you argue that there were signs of dementia in Reagan when he was in office? ( I did not, by the way. I made the same arguments that I am making now. )
Whataboutism aside, they both showed signs of Dementia but at different times of their Presidency’s. Biden before he was elected and Reagan in his second term. Interestingly the left pushed that Reagan was not fit to be President because of it. Yes, I remember it well.
I guess they have changed their minds on that with Biden ….
Joe is exhibiting plenty of the signs the Mayo clinic (above) and many others are saying to look out for. They are there for any non partisan to see The fact that the party (and especially the family) is ignoring those signs and not getting him evaluated by a professional is sad on many levels. I would consider it an extreme case of TDS when it is so important to get Trump out of office that you would ignore signs and not get him evaluated to determine what, if anything can be done for him.
I have no doubt that he’s been evaluated. It is now probably one of our closest guarded state secrets.
Did you argue, when Reagan was still PotUS, that Reagan was showing signs of dementia?
So is most everyone else. You do not seem to want to deal with the reality that memory loss, for example, is a general category. We all experience memory loss in various ways (especially as we age).
Again:
It is important to understand the difference between observations and actual signs of dementia. And then realize that professionals are trained to distinguish an actual sign from an observation in the category.
Leave it to the professionals to make suggestions of dementia.
You may very well be correct in which case they think the American people have a right to know.
It is up to the doctor to diagnose if the person has dementia. It is up to the person or loved ones to determine if the person is showing signs or symptoms of dimensia so they will bring the individual to the doctor.
Again from mayo clinic:
When To See A Doctor
See a health care professional if you or a loved one has memory problems or other dementia symptoms. It's important to determine the cause. Some medical conditions that cause dementia symptoms can be treated.
Are you suggesting if a loved one of yours was showing what Joe is you would not suggest a doctor?
My father was not as bad as Joe but was showing signs and we had him checked.
Leave it to the professionals to make suggestions of dementia
What would make you determine it was time to bring a loved one to a professional for his diagnosis?
Depends on the specific circumstances; everyone is different. So it likely would be a very noticeable, somewhat abrupt change in behavior.
Importantly, one does indeed go to a professional to evaluate the patient based on observations, then to run tests to make a credible diagnosis, and then to recommend treatment.
For example, my late father-in-law lived with us for the last six years of his life. We saw him degenerate in many ways, including cognitively. He would gradually become more forgetful and lose various abilities. But what concerned us was when (an event) he forget the name of my wife (his daughter). That was an extreme event (as opposed to occasionally forgetting words he used to know in Scrabble games). He was tested by RNs who would periodically come to our home to perform their routine tests, but was never diagnosed with dementia, just normal cognitive decline (he was in his 90s). His cognitive decline was substantially worse than what we think we are observing with Trump or Biden.
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. The point is that an actual sign of dementia would be a professional observing a patient and recognizing (based on their knowledge and experience) a sign of dementia vs. what would be considered normal cognitive decline.
Don't jump on a social media forum and start making claims about signs of dementia unless you are qualified to distinguish true signs of dementia from general observations. After all, anyone can claim that a person who is growing more forgetful is showing signs of dementia. But that observation is not even remotely definitive. It is based on a very limited understanding of what is actually involved. Let the professionals observe, test, and diagnose signs of dementia and the presence of dementia.
What a pathetic ‘rebuttal’. You ignored the entirety of my comment to hurl insults that will never get deleted by a,,,,,’mod’.
I criticized your 'rebuttal'. There is a fundamental difference between criticizing a comment and 'hurling insults'.
Your 'rebuttal' was devoid of any counterargument or facts. It was a pointless retort and even invoked a strawman.
Step up to the plate and make a rebuttal instead of complaining.
Here is my comment again (@4.1.8), either rebut it thoughtfully or move on:
My rebuttal was intentional. We both know how the back n forth will go. We’ve been there before. We won’t agree and it will go downhill from there.
A non-rebuttal.
I’m not the one arguing. Or resorting decades old whataboutism.
I simply stated an observation of “current” events.
I did not claim that you are arguing right now. I asked you a question about what you did when Reagan was PotUS. You refuse to answer this simple question:
Your refusal to answer suggests that when Reagan was still PotUS you did NOT buy into the notion that he was showing signs of dementia. I would not be surprised if you, at that time, would have challenged those claiming Reagan had signs of dementia by asking them where they got their medical degrees. Or noting that clinical diagnoses are best left to those trained and experienced to actually speak of such matters with credibility. Or note that before making such pronouncements, one should have at least reviewed the results of clinical tests.
We can all see that Biden (and Trump) are not as sharp as they once were. That is easily seen by comparing videos. We can observe cognitive decline. Something that typically happens with age. What we cannot do based on these videos is speak credibly about cognitive disease.
Obviously. The point is signs of dementia are observations of lay people as well as professionals.. Try googling it. When you see someone exhibit the signs you should consider having them checked to confirm the signs are or are not dementia. What the Mayo clinic said on the subject is very clear. "See a health care professional if you or a loved one has memory problems or other dementia symptoms." They are obviously talking about a laypersons observations of symptoms or signs. I have to wonder why you have so much trouble with a very easy concept.
Why do you think Biden and his minions are so against being checked out to put the issue to rest?
IMO anyone over 75 should be evaluated before running for president
The counterpoint I made is that lay people can at best only observe. They lack sufficient background (education and experience) to credibly state that their observations are indeed a symptom of a disease (except in extreme cases).
You would need to address that question to the president.
Whether "you" agree or not, Biden is seen as a good person by many millions of people and that is a fact.
Bullshit. I clearly stated both showed signs of Dementia in 4.1.24 Why do you insist on being so disingenuous?
That is not what I asked. I asked what you said when Reagan was in office. That would be prior to Jan 20th, 1989.
Your continued deflection reveals the answer.
But this @4.1.24 further illustrates your very likely position prior to Jan 20th, 1989:
When 'the left' was suggesting that Reagan showed signs of dementia, you either agreed with them, had no opinion, or disagreed. Given your reference to 'the left' you obviously did not agree with them. So did you remain silent or did you argue that they were wrong?
lol …. This always ends up the same.
No, it does not. Once again your assumptions are incorrect. I answered your question. That you don’t like how I did it is not my problem.
Your whataboutism is still noted …
Yes it does always end up the same. You dodge and deflect and then falsely claim you answered the question.
Nah but you keep telling yourself that.
Be that as it may. I stand by my comment.
Biden gets the “chosen one” free pass from those millions.
Denial is a very active component of those folks psyche.
True, but to be honest both parties benefit from the millions who always vote party line exclusively.
That is rich considering this meme MAGA are sharing...
[Deleted][✘]
I have not heard Democrats claiming Joe Biden was "Chosen By God" like the MAGA BELIEVE that Trump and Putin ARE!
What gets me are those that know there is cognitive decline, but will still support Biden by giving him their vote simply to try and keep another out of office.
One big reason why we get shitheads as we do today in office.
You need this explained?
One of two men will be elected to the presidency this year. Both are too old for the office and both show evidence of cognitive decline by simply comparing videos from the past. It is a failure of both parties to allow these two men to run for this office.
But there is a profound difference between these two men. One is a decent human being who generally tries to do what he thinks is best for the nation. The other is a vindictive narcissist who demonstrably will throw the CotUS and the nation under the bus to get what he desires. Trump is a traitor — the only PotUS in our history who attempted to steal a US presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying and incitement.
Trump, through his actions, illustrates that he should never be allowed access to any political power, much less the presidency.
That leaves Biden.
That is reality. We do not always get dealt a good hand so we sometimes must make do with what we have.
Soooooo.... Bob The Builder?
[Deleted][✘]
Yes we must …. I will and will vote to get rid of Biden. Since by his actions he has shown he is not qualified to be President.
Not even close ……
I find it interesting that many of the same people see the signs of severe cognitive decline if not dementia yet would still vote for Biden instead of insisting that he get tested to see exactly what he has or what his decline is. If they did this 6 months ago they would have been able to get someone else if the testing dictated it was the proper course but instead we get to watch a very sad decline real time. It is beyond me how that can just be ignored and rationalized by just "well, he aint the other guy".
It is more like: "the other guy should never, under any circumstances, be allowed access to the powers of the presidency".
OK, It is beyond me how Joes mental decline can just be ignored without insisting on testing and rationalized by just saying "the other guy should never, under any circumstances, be allowed access to the powers of the presidency".
Many people might also say Someone with Joes apparent mental decline should never, under any circumstances, be allowed access to the powers of the presidency without being tested and it is proven he won't push the red button because he thinks it means emergency ice cream delivery.
You assume that Biden's (and Trump's) apparent cognitive decline (a normal function of aging) is being ignored. Even if the apparent cognitive decline is noted, you still somehow assume it is being ignored.
Yes, anyone who does not know by now that my position is that Biden is too old has not been paying attention. In addition, apparently you ignore Trump's apparent cognitive decline. It is not as though we have an 80 year old vs. a 50 year old here. We have two elderly men and both are too old to be PotUS.
Further, you seem to not recognize that Trump is a vindictive loose-cannon who cares about himself far more than he does the CotUS or the nation (or anything). I am substantially more concerned about a vindictive, narcissistic loose-cannon with the powers of the presidency.
Biden at least will consider advisors and will operate with a steady hand. Trump is quite the opposite.
I normally disagree with you Robert but cannot with that statement about President Biden. He is a good person, that is obvious.
If it is not being ignored you don't think the American people deserve to know about it? Not telling the American people would actually be just as bad or even worse than just feeling we don't deserve to know it. If the news was good you don't think the White house would be crowing about it?
Aware of it, I don't see it in the same Ballpark as Biden.
When did I ever say that, or is this one of those times an assumption is made because you don't have any actual facts?
I can understand anyone feeling that way but I would also say he was President for 4 years and we are still here. His bark is not always the same as his bite.
Possibly but I am not sure who really has his ear, what their actual control over him is or what their agenda is.
That is one of the main issues I have had about Trump.
Well of course. If Biden were suffering from Dementia, for example, the American people should know that. Similarly, if Trump had medical issues, we should know.
That is obvious.
You do not have to use specific words to connote an idea. Your collective posts cause me to conclude that you seem to not recognize that Trump is a vindictive loose-cannon.
Do you think it is wise to give a vindictive, loose-cannon, narcissist the powers of the presidency?
I am not suggesting the world would end if Trump were elected. But I am suggesting that this time around, Trump will use the presidency as a tool to get what he wants. And what he wants is revenge and exoneration. He will not be working for the people, he will be working for himself. And then, on top of that, he will be a loose-cannon whose rhetoric is substantially worse than even his record-setting rhetoric while PotUS. Reelecting Trump will embolden him and his sycophant supporters even more because they can then claim a mandate. They can justify all of their misdeeds as valid because the American people approve by virtue of the vote.
To wit, the American electorate would ipso facto say that it is okay for Trump to violate the CotUS and attempt to steal a US presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement. Pretty much expressing that Trump can do what he wants and they will almost always grant approval.
IMO Trump supporters are, for the most part, partisans who are voting for whoever is the GOP nominee. Trump will have an R next to his name thus he will get their vote.
So posting about Biden and not Trump (as much since I have said several times my thoughts on him and the fact I don't want him to be president) has led you to conclude something. Might want to adjust your logic a tad, it seems to be incorrect more often than correct based on my (and several others) interactions with you.
While I would say many, if not most politicians have a little of those traits Trump has taken it to a new, and unhealthy level.
So it seems your issue is what he and his supporters might do and not what he has actually done the first time around. That sounds more like unfounded fear and not logic but go with it if you wish.
to do what he did (assuming he is not convicted of anything in the future). They might not agree with your assessment of his wrongdoings but that would not surprise me.
Not unlike what we heard during the 2020 election. How many times did we hear "If Trump is president, we will )fill in the blank here).
Absolutely none of what was predicted came true.
Now we have to hear it once again.
Boring to say the least.
My favorite is all the celebrities that said they would leave the country if he was elected. Just another broken promise from the liberal elites.
I think my logic is spot on. The evidence continues to result in the same basic conclusion.
The mere fact that I did not, in this comment, discuss what Trump has done historically does not mean that I spontaneously (and inexplicably) no longer care about it. Seems to me you take every opportunity to find a way to draw faulty conclusions about what I write.
Trump's past actions speak loudly about his thought process, priorities, and what he is willing to do. One factors that into the current circumstances to draw a reasonable hypothesis of what Trump might be like if given a second term.
Of course you would
The evidence continues to result in the same basic conclusion.
Of course it does, that is a forgone conclusion
I think many of them ave been mocked incessantly, and with good reason.
I don't think we will be hearing this much in 2024, but, alas, I feel, I will be wrong with this.
Yes, a consistent stream of correlating evidence will reinforce a conclusion.
For example, one could take your comments and easily draw the conclusion that if you voted for Biden or Trump it would be Trump. You claim that you will not vote for either. But if you did vote for one of them, your negative comments against Biden vs. almost no negative comments (indeed, defensive comments instead) overwhelmingly show that Trump would be your choice.
Furthermore, Trump's "people" intend to Project 25 this country (Immediately upon inauguration):
This is the power of the 'imperial' presidency some conservatives EXPECT to hold and put on full display on "Day One" of a Trump 2025 presidency-where as Trump puts it he would like to be, "A dictator for one day. . . ." He will issue executive orders (already prepared and 'canned' for ready use) to drive this nation back to its past repressions of ANYBODY WHO IS NOT MAGA-minded and loyal to its causes.
I truly hope none of us intend to live in "Trump U.S.A. OF CONSERVATISM."
(And we have some conservatives here who wish to drive discussion in any direction but about this prefabricated scheme of their for the next conservative presidency.)
I hope that I don’t lose my job in FY25.
Your concern is duly noted.
See 4.1.77 and only after you read it respond back to me. To do otherwise it will be a waste of time and energy.
See 4.1.77.
Fine with me. People are free to draw any conclusion they wish to draw. That does not mean they are correct. I can assure you I am not losing any sleep over it.
I am sure people are coming to conclusions about what you think based on your comments. I am sure some of them are incorrect. How much does it really matter to you?
No choice but to hear it until it is not a possibility! MAGAs have a plan to 'steal' the advancements in this country made by liberals and set us back to what some conservatives call a "constitutional America" - a time when conservatism was predominant.
Simply put: Liberals won't let some conservatives do it. We will write about it and act against it too!
The difference is that I do not write to appeal to a particular group. Thus I do not engage in ridiculous hyperbole (e.g. "brain dead Joe", "dirty diaper Donny") or childish name-mangling (e.g. Brandon / Drumpf). My intent is to make arguments and communicate that which is as close to truth as I can surmise. Thus my claims have a supporting, evidence-based argument which will be delivered if challenged.
It is the difference between emotive / rallying comments and those intended to promote thoughtful discourse.
If you do not care about making true statements and are content to toss out emotional hyperbole, then contributions along that line are of no value to me and to others who seek to engage at an adult intellectual level.
My responses to such rhetoric will be critical along the lines of "no value".
Scary stuff
Biden has produced no think-tank scheme to takeover and end careers of good hardworking people who have government jobs, careers. . . only to give them over to people for a four year stint. . . of course, assuming Trump "plans" include him leaving office at the end of four years. . . .
Biden should look a tad "fresher" to you now, I hope.
Thanks for clarifying I can see that sometimes and sometimes I see something totally different.
I can do both. I can make true statements and toss hyperbole (no emotion to it). If it is an issue for people to tell the difference or if they have an issue with my approach that is fine with me.
Some folks seem to find value in it. I wonder why you would read things that you feel are of no value to you. Do you feel a need to point out what has no value to you rather than just not respond or read it at all?
Been there, read that
I think they both look pretty bad on many different levels
Most everyone has that ability. The key is the choice one makes. Some choose to toss hyperbole (diminishing credibility, accomplishing nothing of value) while others choose a more thoughtful approach.
Only one of the two men (choices) is planning to tamper with the foundations of our government (next time around). That one is the one doing "scary stuff" and is providing a "heads-up" so you can't cry foul after missing the voting or writing in "Not Present" or its equivalent in November 2024!
Also there is a link there (PROJECT 2025) to a pdf file well over 899 plus pages (a 'whole' of government set of modifications are being schemed in it for the planned next Trump Administration).
I agree, I think about it every time I do it. I am thoughtful like that.
Oh but I can cry foul if that is what I wish to do
Sure you could. There would be no point to do so, nevertheless. Better to get onboard to avoiding "scary stuff" and help out rather than dealing with chaos and regret that will span people of certain ages life-times.
Don’t let Trump see that note.
What do you think is the probability all that scary stuff will happen if Trump is elected? What do you think about the assault on the first amendment that the left is attempting under a disinformation flag?
Well, better hope there are no "yes" men assigned to your 'unit' if and when Trump's project 2025 begins in earnest! Vote Biden for a relatively better professional outcome!
Trump is presently asking courts to grant and declare him (and future presidents) immune to whatever he/they do in office-no matter what it is no prosecution to be forthcoming or allowed the DOJ by court opinion. I take the REQUEST seriously-especially when you 'BUTT" Project 25 up against it! (In the future, no questions please as they lead to awkward moments in discussion - just make statements and I will respond to you.)
Julius Caesar wanted the Roman Senate to give him the same powers. The powers of a Dictator...
President Biden is not a doddering old man but the former 'president' trump traitor is obviously demented and becoming more so by the day.
Denying the undeniable.
I think it's what made Capone mental - untreated syphilis which essentially rots the brain - or what passes for a brain with the former 'president'
You are diagnosing trump with untreated syphilis?
I admire your allegiance to the party line, but in this case if you cannot see the doddering in the president then you are not looking.
I have no argument with the fact that Trump is nuts
President Biden is a doddering old man
There I fixed it for you
I disagree wholeheartedly with the statement that President Biden is a doddering old man AGAIN but not your second.
Well of course - because that is the paper line and you follow the party line.
I can't wait to see the two of them trying to debate - without prompters or scripts or someone to say "no more questions". It will be hilarious "must see TV"
Trump is an awful leader. Just ask yourself one question, would you want him to be your supervisor? We all know the answer is an absolute “fuck no”.
Trump only hires yes men. Nobody should want to be a yes man under anybody else. Especially a prodigious liar, because you can't trust a liar!
No sane person would argue that Trump is a good leader, but I would not follow either of them in looking for anything more complicated than finding a light switch.
I think you are giving them too much credit, I've seen numerous videos where Biden wanders off or need simple guidance off stage. maybe operate a light Switch might have been better? than at least you have a 50/50 chance.
Yeah, that's really all Biden has going for him. Which is big, no doubt. "Likeability" is a huge factor for low information voters and why Biden benefits so much from having the billions of dollars worth of help from the MSM in how he's portrayed vs how Trump is. The funny thing about it, in their rush to fend off the doddering idiot image that he inevitably gives off when he has to go off script, his handlers keep pushing stories about what an asshole he is behind close doors, screaming and swearing at aids who don't answer questions the way he wants etc etc..., They've realized the voters who care about likability don't read politico or other grown up papers so they are trying to reassure those readers that Biden, in secret, isn't a mush brain while not alienating the "Uncle Joe" image the media carries to the masses.
Of course, his likeability is also trending down despite all these efforts. At heart, he's a braggart and a bully and the media can't totally paper over that, no matter how they try.
Classic Sundowners syndrome typically present in folks with dementia.
But I’m sure he just a really likable old guy ……C’mon man!
Could be a reason why they put lids on the day by 1pm.
They know.
Unless they concoct "Dark Brandon".
As your friend Richard said
The January 6th Report is all anyone should need to make their mind up that Trump should never be allowed near public office.
For emphasis.
Watching brain dead Joe meander around not knowing where he is going or what he is doing and his difficulty putting a sentence together without the help of a teleprompter is all anyone should need to see before they insist that Joe be tested for cognitive decline before they would vote for him.
Ridiculous hyperbole that causes this comment to have zero credibility.
Of course, even if the rest is valid ignore it. That is the main issue, always an excuse to ignore Joes need to be tested.
Thanks for the example
If you want your comments taken seriously, attempt to not engage in ridiculous hyperbole.
Actually I really don't care if they are taken seriously. If someone wants to ignore them because they don't like something I said that is their issue, I won't make it mine. Of course I might consider it a sign of weakness of their argument if they are so easily scared away.
I would vote for a cold clod of dirt if the choice were the clod of dirt or Trump.
The name is Dirt, Claude Dirt...
That has been my conclusion for quite some time.
Seriously, it would be better for the nation to have some special interim PotUS rather than have Trump. The interim PotUS would almost certainly be better for the nation.
I actually feel sorry for some folks that need acceptance and to be taken seriously all the time. Usually they fail at it. The more they try the less seriously they can be taken.
A solid one from Joe, he must be so proud. Was that in the weekly DNC news blast so people would know?
So you will vote Biden.
I don't think that is a surprise.
I wonder why someone would spend time communicating their thoughts if they did not care if their communication carried any credibility. What is the point? I have a similar question regarding flat Earthers. What are they trying to accomplish?
Obviously it will be credible to many, the few that won't find it credible I don't care about them. That is there problem. I find many people not credible that other people do. It might have a correlation to if they agree with what is being said. If you don't agree you might look for something so you can accuse them of not being credible that way you can back out of a discussion. If you like what they are saying you might always find the credible. I see the accusations on NT every day
I wonder why someone would spend time communicating their thoughts to someone they don't think have a credible opinion
People that worry about being taken seriously and credible are usually the ones that take themselves too seriously.
Labeling Biden "brain dead" illustrates a willingness to make outrageous claims. It also illustrates a strong bias. Those who hold that same bias will of course have no problem. So if your intent is to simply engage in group-think rally cries, such comments accomplish that.
If your intent is thoughtful discourse, "brain dead" and similar hyperbole would cause many of your interlocutors to dismiss your comment as emotional bias.
Only to those that take it seriously or have a predisposition to find no credibility to those that disagree with the position anyways.
They are welcome to do that if they wish or can't look past it. I have had many thousands of great conversations with a little wiseassery thrown in to worry about the few that get their panties twisted because of it.
One more time, not my issue
I doubt anyone takes such a ridiculous claim seriously. Instead, they would use that as an indicator of the emotional bias of the comment.
They could if they chose to. They could also use it as an indicator as to how seriously I take their comment in some cases. That would also tell me something about them.
It hadn't better be. I think that I have stated my position clearly.
Calude Dirt looks like a much more viable candidate than either Biden or Trump, I hope he makes it to all 50 state ballots so millions discussed with the major parties can vote for him.
His running mate Pot Pourri
opinions on that do vary. Exponentially worse in this case.
Biden and Trump set an unusually low bar, but Harris is unable to exceed even that low level
Please list your reason/s for considering Vice-President Harris unfit to lead our great nation if it came to it.
Perhaps for the same reasons that have the American polled electorate at only a 37% approval rating.
Unless you consulted with "Robert" you are just supposing what he might list as a reason/s for considering VP Harris as unfit to lead our great nation if it came to it. I can suppose for him and get the same effect you get and it would be an exercise in futility.
Indeed.
Go for it.
That is what I wrote and it fits precisely what I meant. You lose when you 'carve' into pieces the context of a comment.
I think I will vote for this guy.
Please list your reasons for thinking that she is capable and qualified, because I (like a vast majority of polled voters in the U.S.) view her functioning (actually) non-functioning as VP in every initiative she was put in charge or participated in
"As of April 3, 40% of registered voters had a favorable opinion of Harris and 55% had an unfavorable opinion — a net rating of -15 percentage points, according to a Times average."
Kamala Harris approval rating, polls vs. Biden and other VP - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
Your response to what you wrote and was asked kindly to elaborate on with something meaningful which could be considered is, for me to explain to you why the opposite of your assertion is true. It's a strawman: I have not rendered an opinion or an assertion for or against VP Harris, as you did. Moreover, offering up a favorability poll does not do your opinion of VP Harris justice as it is too broad and likely does not include 'voice' in it-only your explanation for how you came to your conclusion can suffice. Again, do share how you determined VP Harris is below the standard for vice-presidents.
Note: Your linked Los Angeles Time article is behind a paywall and it throws up a large 'subscription' solicitation which can't be read around on the edges.
I have witnessed her ineffectiveness as the "border czar" allowing, doing nothing to fix the border crisis and whining when others (governors for instance take matters into their own hands)
I have also noted that she seldom if ever has anything new to say, simply parrots campaign slogan bites.
She has not been given a single major thing to do by the administration and in an administration such as this if she had any talent they would be using.
And it seems that people around the country agree with me.
Kamala Harris : Approval Polls | FiveThirtyEight
Kamala Harris Approval
Again polls are not significant in this case: a characterization of her as sub-par should not come from a favorability poll, especially not one you have not participated it. You have no way to know what was asked. And the real facts of the border "problem" defy easy answers because it is complex. You did mention her role as "border czar" and its ineffectiveness but you have not compared her actions or inactions to anyone else who has made the border problem better. Also, V.P. Harris. . . has a 'boss,' he is the president. It is highly probable that he APPROVES of her professional conduct or he would replace her on the "ticket" this fall. This he has not done.
I don't know about the sloganeering, as I don't see enough of her in public to form an opinion.
Thank you for sharing what you have, nevertheless!
Yes, we understand polls are only significant when the support a preferred position or narrative
Most of us haven't particpated in any poll. does that mean that polling is without value?
Of course you do, most reputable ones publish the questions when they publish the results.
You would chime in to state that, but I don't read any of your 'chiming in' when polls don't fit your narrative. You routinely take a pass on commenting. Polls point out that certain percentages don't like President Biden's handling of the border problem also—among other dislikes about him.
Poll testing of complex political problems does not mean that professionals have not done what they can with a complex issue involving many political players and vocal practitioners, and we all should know this. Especially, if/when we 'dedicate' ourselves to talking about the issues of the day.
For example: Congress took a pass on helping this president get a border security bill to his desk for signing, because politically it would benefit his administration and not allow a certain former president who is currently running an entire political party (GOP) from the political sidelines. The assumption being that the former president will win the office of president again in November 2024 and then he will be presented with a bill from a MAGA-led congress (house and senate majority).
We have no idea if that "deal" can happen if both houses of congress are not in the hands of MAGAs next January 20th. But, the proposed border deal offered up by a strong conservative senate member (Lankford) is "dead" for now.
Finally, you won't normally read me quoting polls, especially so far out from an election, because voter perspectives change and "tighten' the closer the nation gets to the end of campaign season and actual vote time. Moreover, I am someone who used to get phone (push) polls and they were worthless in my opinion, because they asked leading questions about ridiculous hypotheticals meant to solicit a particular and sometimes peculiar set of answers.
See 6.2.38.
Polls are only significant if they support your point of view right.
I told you why I think so little of her but you have presented no specific accomplishments that show she has accomplished anything as VP or that she is qualified to be president.
You asked for specifics not you provide specifcs, please
I explained my view of polls here: 6.2.38 ". . . Finally, you won't normally read me quoting polls, especially so far out from an election, because voter perspectives change and "tighten' the closer the nation gets to the end of campaign season and actual vote time. Moreover, I am someone who used to get phone (push) polls and they were worthless in my opinion, because they asked leading questions about ridiculous hypotheticals meant to solicit a particular and sometimes peculiar set of answers."
I have "no confidence" in polling, overall. That is, I see polls, I listen to others mention polls. Sometimes, I even read polls (as the case render a need to look deeper into the meaning of a specific item.). Then, I take polls with a proverbial 'grain of salt.' I do allow others to make what they can of one/them, nevertheless.
As to what her qualifications are: We can start with her resume. Then move on: Harris was Attorney General of California; Harris was in the Senate; Harris was VETTED and CHOSEN to be Vice-President; finally, Harris is already in line to be president "today" should some unfortunate circumstance mean Biden is rendered unconscious. . . or worse. Lastly, this president is vouching for her credibility to keep her job by running her as a valuable team player for his November 2024 campaign and reelection vote.
Kamala is good at fundraising and campaigning.
If she can keep independent woman and a high Black turnout, she will have earned her keep.
And, those activities are perfectly "Okay!" too!
It's all about the game ("don't hate the player-hate the game") too when the chips touch down.
Better than Okay, they are critical to Joe’s success.
I have no idea what you mean.
What we got here is a failure to communicate, some men you just can’t reach…
Well Cap’n, I’m one of those men.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you mean either.
Exactly.
Why, because of the color of their skin
Run, run, run but you sure can't hide
Vote for me and I'll set you free
Rap on, brother, rap on
And it seems nobody's interested in learning but the teacher
Segregation, determination, demonstration, integration
Aggravation, humiliation, obligation to our nation
Oh yeah, that's what the world is today
Woo, hey, hey
"Ball of confusion," song by the Temptations, I understood back in the 'day.' Your comment written mere moments ago (6.2.47) I don't get at all. Outstanding! You know the song, nevertheless!
, Harris is already in line to be president "today"
And that as scary as it is, does not make her qualified in any way to be president.
She has done nothing and nothing in her background suggests that she is qualified to be POTUS
Again to be considered marginally qualified to replace Biden is a very low bar
Oh bullshit! Being the California Attorney General, a United States Senator and the Vice President of the United States of America is not exactly nothing. Who has more qualifications and experience?
People in her own state disagreed when she ran for President. She was at best, a distant fourth and had to drop out.
Attempts to revise history, noted …..
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
The qualifications for becoming president of the United States are fundamentally simple. Clearly, Vice-President Harris has accomplished them.
Yep, along with about 150 million other Americans ……
Well, that simply means one of us could be president too!
Okay, a fountain of useless information at this point, but do tell us more. If you have it and time to spare.
Exactly
Look it up.
It wasn’t pretty ….
It's old news. Ms. Harris, like the rest of us, does not control all the dynamics that whirl around or through her life. Come to the present and live like the others of humanity.
Her favorability rating with Americans tells a different story.
To people locked in the past and according to you at the least are—supplying answers to push pollsters.
Despite your shout of Bovine Brownies (very well argued though)
She accomplished nothing of significance in any of those roles
Current polls are not locked in the past.
They are ……. Current.
To people locked in the past and according to you at the least are—supplying answers to push pollsters.
Nope, try again.