Is Biden Really in Charge?

[lizkat]

I'm of the opinion that if this is really of any concern then the President has too much power, both literally and in people's beliefs. I already said in the Afghanistan thread we need to stop heaping all the blame and praise on one person. As far as being a puppet, all Presidents have advisors, although Trump mostly only listened to the one in his head which I would argue was far more dangerous.

On Biden specifically, I think it's more of a concern of the right who refuse to believe that some (not all) of the platforms associated with the left are actually popular. They can't wrap their head around that so they'd rather believe there's some deep state conspiracy pulling all the strings. That's their entire wheelhouse right now, everything is the deep state or antifa.

The RNC nowadays really does pitch the idea that the Democrats aren't legitimate political opposition in the USA.

This despite the Republicans having nudged Dems right for 60 years while moving right themselves to where Eisenhower couldn't get a GOP nomination and they'd call Adlai Stevenson a communist instead of just an ivory tower egghead.

But the GOP is still on about how If it's blue, it's socialist, un-American, just all wrong for the USA. In that framework, if Biden were 40 today he'd be pegged as all that and too young. But he's 80 instead, so he's pegged as all that and too old.

My response to this stuff is "what else ya got?"

Example: The farthest Trump got on infrastructure was stepping on his own "infrastructure theme week" by refusing to take advice from his own staff on the press conference announcing it, and instead getting mired in a botched walkback of his remedial comments regarding his first takes on the Charlottesville incident. That suited Stephen Miller fine and probably Trump too. Stirring the pot on racial issues has kept part of the GOP base energized. But that move cost the administration its momentum on infrastructure for sure.​

​

Biden on the other hand relied on negotiators from both parties who have worked across the aisle before and did it again and came up with something even the Rs realize they better get behind, because their base expects this stuff to happen.​

One reason some Dems went for Biden in 2020 is he knows how to work with Congress and America's sick of hateful gridlock. Gridlock is good sometimes, better than bad legislation. But gridlock based on a party just saying NO to federal government capability for so long was a dam looking to get busted.

Hey, it's possible Trump's still the GOP's winningest guy, and right-leaning voters would go for him again in 2024, especially if Harris ended up being the incumbent to beat. On paper for the far right, that's a match made in heaven. But Is the Republican Party really crazy enough to bank on it? I don't happen to think so. OK, Biden is a kind of caretaker president. Dems hope he can smooth things over with our allies, restore some functionality to federal agencies, resolve some issues with China to both countries' benefit, get some stuff done that Americans want done, no matter their voting preference. Get us used to government by consensus again, not the illusion of governance by tweet from The Don.

And sure, the 2024 elections will more likely pass the baton back to Obama's generation, i.e. Harris or a Dem primary challenger roughly her age versus a Republican in that age group. In the meantime I don't view Biden as incapable of running this government. I sleep like a log now and wake up curious about the day ahead.... not worried if the President of the USA has loudmouthed us into nuclear war with a frenemy by tweeting some crock to the planet at 4am.

 

[thekev]

Ok, how about this. Biden must take the same Montreal Cognitive Assessment test that Trump took.

Would everyone be good with that?

Had Biden been the first to take such a test, the typical right wing response would have been to question why he needed to undergo it in the first place. This is the kind of thing that shouldn't be provided directly as public information. They should disclose if a president needs to step down for health reasons. The low level details are more relevant to a clinician than the general public, many of who seem to draw broad implications from these results.

I wonder how many people simply don't want to see.

I will admit I did not want to see it with Trump. And other than a few stumbles, I actually didn't see it. But Biden is having issues.

One thing we did know about Trump, he couldn't be handled. He did and said what he wanted, when he wanted. I don't think the same can be said about Biden. I think he will do and say what he is told to do and say. Of course this is just my opinion and I am on record in this thread that he doesn't finish his term.

Trump couldn't be handled, but he was quite random. There wasn't a clear presentation of how he justified most of these decisions at the time they were made. Most of the time, his staff just had to retcon his statements.

 

[Pumbaa]

Had Biden been the first to take such a test, the typical right wing response would have been to question why he needed to undergo it in the first place. This is the kind of thing that shouldn't be provided directly as public information. They should disclose if a president needs to step down for health reasons. The low level details are more relevant to a clinician than the general public, many of who seem to draw broad implications from these results.

Oh yes, they absolutely would have questioned why he needed to undergo it in the first place. And rightfully so!

 

[thekev]

Oh yes, they absolutely would have questioned why he needed to undergo it in the first place. And rightfully so!

The bolded part is why you should report something based on a physician's analysis rather than that he underwent such a test. That on its own is probably insufficient for a clinician to say much of anything, yet others are likely to draw their own unsupported conclusions.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

The bolded part is why you should report something based on a physician's analysis rather than that he underwent such a test. That on its own is probably insufficient for a clinician to say much of anything, yet others are likely to draw their own unsupported conclusions.

I think we’ve lowered the bar to the point that just a random uneducated dude on a soap box suggesting he should be tested is cause for alarm for some. In some circles "expert" applies to anybody who dresses well and agrees with you.

 

[User.168]

.

 

[User.168]

.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I think we’ve lowered the bar to the point that just a random uneducated dude on a soap box suggesting he should be tested is cause for alarm for some. In some circles "expert" applies to anybody who dresses well and agrees with you.

i just realized I described Joe Rogan, aside from the dresses well part. But I suppose for the militia/survivalist/wrestling fan crowd he dresses well.

 

[Edd]

i just realized I described Joe Rogan, aside from the dresses well part. But I suppose for the militia/survivalist/wrestling fan crowd he dresses well.

Also passes for “smart” for that crowd.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Also passes for “smart” for that crowd.

Reminds me of somebody who said Jerod Kushner is what dumb people think a smart person is.

 

[Alli]

Watch this video with an open mind.

Yea…I’ve been getting lost for years and I don’t have a yard the size of his. That really doesn’t prove anything other than his sense of direction is as bad as mine.

 

[Alli]

Watch any of his speeches.

I love listening to his speeches. His passion and honesty are such a breath of fresh air after the last four years.

 

[User.168]

.

 

[Herdfan]

We aren’t likely to change each other’s minds directly… however, IMHO - the discussions, if all members argue honestly, often lead to me looking things up, finding stories I hadn’t seen before… finding sources or websites I hadn’t seen before; hearing perspectives I hadn’t heard before. In the end, I learn something. That’s what I end up getting out of it…

I get a bit “vocal” from time to time (ok all the time) but please don’t take it personally.

He's right. @SuperMatt probably are on opposites sides of just about every issue, but I do learn from him and others. Hopefully they learn a bit from me as well.

So please don't leave. I need the support.

 

[User.45]

Seems a majority of voters don't think so.

Who’s In Charge? Most Voters Don’t Think It’s Biden

A majority of voters don’t think President Joe Biden is mentally and physically capable of doing his job, and suspect the White House is actually being run by others.

www.rasmussenreports.com

Now I know some will hit back because of who the pollster is or because no one wants to believe they voted for a President who might not actually be in charge. But even if the results are skewed a bit, there is still a substantial percentage of voters who don't think he is in charge and someone else is pulling the strings.

It's a cheap one but I'll shoot it: Rasmussen predicted Trump to win 2020. LOL.
*That was Trafalgar.

 

[Herdfan]

It's a cheap one but I'll shoot it: Rasmussen predicted Trump to win 2020. LOL.

Nope.

With one week until Election Day, a new survey shows a tight race for the White House.

Every day, Rasmussen Reports comes out with an updated presidential race survey.

The latest survey of likely U.S. voters shows Joe Biden earning 49% support and President Donald Trump earning 47%. Three percent prefer another candidate, while two percent are undecided.

 

[Renzatic]

Nope.

Rasmussen usually tends to frame their questions towards a more conservative slant, hence why their polls tend to trend more highly than others when a Republican candidate or talking point is the focus of the study.

That said, they're still reliable, despite the skew. If Rasmussen is showing a conservative candidate with a below 50% approval rating, they're really, really not doing too good.

 

[Herdfan]

Rasmussen usually tends to frame their questions towards a more conservative slant, hence why their polls tend to trend more highly than others when a Republican candidate or talking point is the focus of the study.

That said, they're still reliable, despite the skew. If Rasmussen is showing a conservative candidate with a below 50% approval rating, they're really, really not doing too good.

They also tend to poll Likely Voters vs Registered Voters so that will makes their results different than some other polls as well.

 

[SuperMatt]

Nope.

The linked Rasmussen poll had Biden at 48 (not 49) and Trump at 47. Final actual results: 51 to 47. The 2% “undecided” went for Biden, plus another 1%. So, they were slightly off, but pretty close to the margin of error.

I agree that many of their “issue” polls are quite slanted because of the questions they ask and how they ask them. And then they present those polls as if they say something that they actually do not say.

 

[User.45]

Nope.

You're right on this one. I confused Rasmussen with the much crazier Trafalgar Group which gave GA, PA, NV and MI to Trump. I remember diving into whatever raw data TG had 'cause it was so absurd.

Rasmussen was much more reasonable, but also much less prevalent (has only a few states, like AZ, which they gave to Trump). We could argue whether popular vote predictions are equatable to presidential election predictions (it should be...but this is 'Murica).