It’s one thing to consider it and it’s another to then proceed as if it’s fact. It leans too much into the conspiracy realm for me. Consider as well that Biden is absolutely neurologically normal for a healthy man his age - a little slower but in full possession of his cognitive ability with the added complexity of stuttering issue public speaking tools that have always been there (speaking to fast, etc.). I tend to lean that way since I’ve seen in it a lot of older people and it explains Biden’s ability to function at an extremely high level the majority of the time but have days where it’s just harder but not impossible. That is not dementia or being cognitively incapacitated, it’s normal aging.
I watched the debate because I wanted to see what BS Trump was gonna put out there but I was also not predisposed to the opinion that Biden is too old, even though he is old. It was bad but even in the beginning what some assume to be a blank look, I saw as him listening and being aghast at what he was hearing from Trump while thinking of how to respond — I don’t think he was aware of the always on split screen, which is highly unusual in a debate. He got better, and I’m one who is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t feeling well and hoped to make it through.
Everyone is so cynical that I have seen no one making the case for the simplest explanation being the true one. Biden was damned if he said he was ill before or during the debate and damned if he didn’t and he certainly could not call it off. To believe that he or anyone would have agreed to these debates if they thought for a moment it would happen the way it did is suspending reality itself.
As I’ve said before, considering one position in good faith requires considering the other position in good faith. I am not in a cult of Biden and whatever happens will happen, but I also am not convinced that the stand down crowd is wholly realistic. Not just strategically but practically. As in: if it’s not Kamala, how does the party get ballot access before deadlines — some of which are before the convention, and the majority of which are right after — when the candidate is not the one who won the primaries. Where does the funding come from since Biden/Harris funds are not transferable. Is there a certainty that all of the myriad election laws in 50 states can be met in such a short time frame? Especially when the GOP has a bevy of lawyers lined up to nullify a new candidate? It’s not as simple as it’s being presented. Any election law experts opining?
I will continue to make an appeal to calm and reflection and humility and grace now that the initial days have passed. People can change their mind about their initial stance but the circular firing squad with intransigence more interested in being right than considering the possibility of being wrong is getting old. We all want the same thing, so can we please stop declaring one side or the other as — fill in the derogatory term here — instead of as our allies in the fight against Trump? I will add, too, that some of the comments about Biden are downright derogatory and insulting from those wishing he would stand down and it’s really off-putting and unnecessary to make the stand down case. The Party and the nation find itself in historically unprecedented territory. There is no one right answer. We are all flying a bit blind and operating by intuition.
You make good points. My feeling is simply that the Democratic Party needs to be as transparent as possible about this, without weakening our influence abroad with rogue nations and even our allies. I realize that those two goals can be incompatible to an extent, but if the Dems are seen as being evasive or even untruthful, it will do their cause more harm than good in the end -- like the old saying goes, it's not the crime so much as the coverup.
I have a parent with severe dementia, and I don't see that in Joe. (But I do see signs of it in Donald.) So I'm not down on Joe so much as wary that the Dems have been trying too hard to massage the situation rather than address it appropriately over time, hoping that it would not explode in our faces. Yet here we are. A large part of why I don't advocate one way or the other what Joe should do is because I simply do not feel that I have enough reliable information to take a stand on it (and since my voice means nothing to the process). But you do ask good questions and pose ample food for thought. I hope those who in fact are in a position to make important decisions will take them into account. For my part I just keep coming back to the feeling that this is becoming the mother of all unforced errors by the Democrats in how they've handled it, and we all stand to pay the price for it in the end.
It’s one thing to consider it and it’s another to then proceed as if it’s fact. It leans too much into the conspiracy realm for me. Consider as well that Biden is absolutely neurologically normal for a healthy man his age - a little slower but in full possession of his cognitive ability with the added complexity of stuttering issue public speaking tools that have always been there (speaking to fast, etc.). I tend to lean that way since I’ve seen in it a lot of older people and it explains Biden’s ability to function at an extremely high level the majority of the time but have days where it’s just harder but not impossible. That is not dementia or being cognitively incapacitated, it’s normal aging.
I watched the debate because I wanted to see what BS Trump was gonna put out there but I was also not predisposed to the opinion that Biden is too old, even though he is old. It was bad but even in the beginning what some assume to be a blank look, I saw as him listening and being aghast at what he was hearing from Trump while thinking of how to respond — I don’t think he was aware of the always on split screen, which is highly unusual in a debate. He got better, and I’m one who is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t feeling well and hoped to make it through.
Everyone is so cynical that I have seen no one making the case for the simplest explanation being the true one. Biden was damned if he said he was ill before or during the debate and damned if he didn’t and he certainly could not call it off. To believe that he or anyone would have agreed to these debates if they thought for a moment it would happen the way it did is suspending reality itself.
As I’ve said before, considering one position in good faith requires considering the other position in good faith. I am not in a cult of Biden and whatever happens will happen, but I also am not convinced that the stand down crowd is wholly realistic. Not just strategically but practically. As in: if it’s not Kamala, how does the party get ballot access before deadlines — some of which are before the convention, and the majority of which are right after — when the candidate is not the one who won the primaries. Where does the funding come from since Biden/Harris funds are not transferable. Is there a certainty that all of the myriad election laws in 50 states can be met in such a short time frame? Especially when the GOP has a bevy of lawyers lined up to nullify a new candidate? It’s not as simple as it’s being presented. Any election law experts opining?
I will continue to make an appeal to calm and reflection and humility and grace now that the initial days have passed. People can change their mind about their initial stance but the circular firing squad with intransigence more interested in being right than considering the possibility of being wrong is getting old. We all want the same thing, so can we please stop declaring one side or the other as — fill in the derogatory term here — instead of as our allies in the fight against Trump? I will add, too, that some of the comments about Biden are downright derogatory and insulting from those wishing he would stand down and it’s really off-putting and unnecessary to make the stand down case. The Party and the nation find itself in historically unprecedented territory. There is no one right answer. We are all flying a bit blind and operating by intuition.
With utmost respect and love.
You make good points. My feeling is simply that the Democratic Party needs to be as transparent as possible about this, without weakening our influence abroad with rogue nations and even our allies. I realize that those two goals can be incompatible to an extent, but if the Dems are seen as being evasive or even untruthful, it will do their cause more harm than good in the end -- like the old saying goes, it's not the crime so much as the coverup.
I have a parent with severe dementia, and I don't see that in Joe. (But I do see signs of it in Donald.) So I'm not down on Joe so much as wary that the Dems have been trying too hard to massage the situation rather than address it appropriately over time, hoping that it would not explode in our faces. Yet here we are. A large part of why I don't advocate one way or the other what Joe should do is because I simply do not feel that I have enough reliable information to take a stand on it (and since my voice means nothing to the process). But you do ask good questions and pose ample food for thought. I hope those who in fact are in a position to make important decisions will take them into account. For my part I just keep coming back to the feeling that this is becoming the mother of all unforced errors by the Democrats in how they've handled it, and we all stand to pay the price for it in the end.
We are in agreement. Thank you for taking this in the spirit that it was intended.