I'm The Most Extreme!

[rogue06]

My mother died with dementia and she never asked any of us "Who are you." That's what they do in the movies. After a awhile, and her regression was very rapid, like within days, she just stopped interacting with us as family members. It's hard to explain, but she grew cold and distant to us. She would respond if we tried to communicate with her, but started to treat us like we were strangers.

You probably were.


In my uncle's case he wound up thinking his daughter (from a previous marriage) was his wife (my aunt), and didn't recognize his wife.

[Ronson]

As of a month ago, he was still handling his own press conferences, extemporaneously answering multiple-part questions with coherence and familiarity that could only come from being engaged in his briefings. What I actually think is that his political opponents have become so inured to personal attacks in lieu of substantive or principled objections, that when faced with a genuinely decent human being, they’ve no recourse except erasure.

I don't believe the video helps your position. Biden seemed confused, forgetful and unresponsive to much of the Q&A afterwards. As mentioned elsewhere, people with cognitive decline can have good days and bad days, and we've seen plenty of examples of the latter during the past year.

As far as "a genuinely decent human being", I don't believe that for a second - of any politician - especially one that has survived for decades in the swamp.

[Juvenal]

I don't believe the video helps your position. Biden seemed confused, forgetful and unresponsive to much of the Q&A afterwards. As mentioned elsewhere, people with cognitive decline can have good days and bad days, and we've seen plenty of examples of the latter during the past year.

Biden has a recognizable speech impediment. He’s a stutterer. He’s worked around the issue his entire life, with limited success. It should go without saying that people without cognitive decline can also have good and bad days, and enjoy ice cream without having to suffer from invidious suppositions. The evidence I’m seeing is that people who insist on seeing cognitive decline will see it regardless of objective evidence.

If you’re looking to argue that your objections are more than echos from the echo chamber, you’re not doing it right.

As to the specifics of the press conference, assuming you actually listened to the Q&A, you’re engaged in hand waves.

In response to the first question, from the AP, he declined to share “specific intelligence” on Russian movements of chemical weapons, or any specifics on what our response might be. Sometimes, unresponsive is the correct response. When asked next by Bloomberg about whether Xi was considering selling arms to Russia or other supplies, he didn’t share specifics either, but was careful to note that he had spoken to Xi, and made clear our interest in enforcing sanctions, with the unasked for insertion that he made no threats, evidence that he was considering carefully the wider audience for his remarks before speaking.

And so on for another fifteen minutes I won’t bother to detail, as the intention was merely to show what an argument based on specifics might look like for those who need a primer.

As mentioned, this is an echo chamber representing the self-admitted dregs of Hillary’s deplorables. The o/p in this thread celebrates his position at the most extreme end of the fringe. The majority of pushback comes from those who claim, with enough reason to be taken seriously, to be even further afield from the mainstream. If you wished your opinions to be differentiable from those of the chamber’s, you’d have done better to avoid echoing their talking points.

As far as "a genuinely decent human being", I don't believe that for a second - of any politician - especially one that has survived for decades in the swamp.

His political opponents have said otherwise, and more, that if you can’t admire him as a person, then you’ve got a problem and you need to do some self-evaluation, because he’s the nicest person they’ve ever met in politics.

I’m no Biden apologist, as would be clear if I wasn’t forced to hash through the endless absurdities coming from his detractors. If there are actual reasons to oppose his policies, I’m listening. But what I’m hearing instead are conspiratorial mumblings about dementia and Easter bunnies and making his own choice of which door he wants to use to enter the White House, and listening to his wife.

And ice cream for God’s sake.

I chose my latest username as homage to one of the greatest satirists in history.

Y’all seem determined to make that choice redundant.

[KingsGambit]

Back on the original point, I've noticed a trend in politics where everything has to be the biggest, the best, the worst, most important, etc. If there's no hyperbole, you're not trying. Trump's style of speech is the most obvious example (he is a New Yorker!) but it's hard enough to take anybody literally anymore.

I had a discussion with a far left friend about this a couple years ago. I mentioned the New York Times editorial about "literally abolishing the police", and pointed out that this conflicts with the common refrain of "nobody really wants to abolish the police". He pointed out that anybody who said "nobody" was just talking like Trump does, not being literal. It was a clever enough deflection, but with the implication that language doesn't matter at all.

[seanD]

Back on the original point, I've noticed a trend in politics where everything has to be the biggest, the best, the worst, most important, etc. If there's no hyperbole, you're not trying. Trump's style of speech is the most obvious example (he is a New Yorker!) but it's hard enough to take anybody literally anymore.

I had a discussion with a far left friend about this a couple years ago. I mentioned the New York Times editorial about "literally abolishing the police", and pointed out that this conflicts with the common refrain of "nobody really wants to abolish the police". He pointed out that anybody who said "nobody" was just talking like Trump does, not being literal. It was a clever enough deflection, but with the implication that language doesn't matter at all.

Only with Biden's declaration, it follows a pattern from the left dubbing conservatives as extremists. It started off as just they're white supremacists and racists, and then after Pelosi called Reps "enemies of the state," it then gravitated to terms like "extremists, " "dangerous," "terrorists."

[Mountain Man]

Biden has a recognizable speech impediment. He’s a stutterer.

A stutter isn't causing him to repeatedly refer to his vice president as "President Harris", or causing him to ramble incoherently and stare blankly during press conferences, or causing him to confuse Title 42 immigration policy with the CDC's unconstitutional mask mandate, or causing him to try to shake hands with a non-existent person, or causing him to wander aimlessly when his handlers aren't right there to give him specific direction, or causing him to need instructions for how to respond during public events, or causing him to yell nonsense like "There are 15 fewer democracies in the world today than there were 60 years ago!" or to claim that there has never been a senator from Delaware, and on and on the list goes.

Even his own staff doesn't trust him to speak to the press without sticking both feet in his mouth, which is why you have embarrassing episodes like at the Easter event when a costumed staffer ran up and literally started waving in his face in order to distract him from answering a question about Afghanistan. As he wandered off with a confused look on his face, you could almost hear him thinking, "Am I the only here who sees the giant rabbit?"

[Mountain Man]

Correction: Joe was yelling about how there are 15 fewer Democracies today than there were ten years ago!

[NorrinRadd]

Biden has a recognizable speech impediment. He’s a stutterer. He’s worked around the issue his entire life, with limited success. It should go without saying that people without cognitive decline can also have good and bad days, and enjoy ice cream without having to suffer from invidious suppositions. The evidence I’m seeing is that people who insist on seeing cognitive decline will see it regardless of objective evidence.

I assume you're aware that we perceive your denial of what we find obvious in similar terms.

[NorrinRadd]

There's Uncle Joe, he's thinkin' kinda slow, brain malfunction...

Anyway...

When he started that speech, I think he could reasonably have been interpreted as only talking about a certain subset of Trump voters. But it quickly became apparent he was referring to all Trump voters, whether or not they actually support most of the MAGA agenda, and all MAGA supporters, whether or not they really support Trump. On Facebook, I said, It's hilarious to think of myself or any of the Trump voters I know IRL or have interacted with online as "extreme." .

I suppose to those on the Left, our thinking is so alien to theirs that we do seem "extreme." It really is kind of interesting. Most of us have pretty much the same views we've had for decades, in some cases since we were despised -- I dare say "deplored" -- by the "Country Club Republicans."

[rogue06]

Biden has a recognizable speech impediment. He’s a stutterer. He’s worked around the issue his entire life, with limited success. It should go without saying that people without cognitive decline can also have good and bad days, and enjoy ice cream without having to suffer from invidious suppositions. The evidence I’m seeing is that people who insist on seeing cognitive decline will see it regardless of objective evidence.

Just stop. Please.

This B.S. that all of his bumbling, muttering, unintelligible mumbling, forgetting, mixing things etc. up is because he has a slight stutter is insulting to those who stutter. A simple check of videos of him from just a few years back clearly show how far he has regressed.

Again, just stop it.

[Ronson]

Biden has a recognizable speech impediment. He’s a stutterer. He’s worked around the issue his entire life, with limited success. It should go without saying that people without cognitive decline can also have good and bad days, and enjoy ice cream without having to suffer from invidious suppositions. The evidence I’m seeing is that people who insist on seeing cognitive decline will see it regardless of objective evidence.

I suppose if people repeat that enough it will suddenly become true. I've never seen Biden "stutter". But he did not mumble and slur until recently.

If you’re looking to argue that your objections are more than echos from the echo chamber, you’re not doing it right.

As to the specifics of the press conference, assuming you actually listened to the Q&A, you’re engaged in hand waves.

I heard enough; Pre-qualified questions from pre-qualified network hacks, including some lickspittle from Der Speigel.

In response to the first question, from the AP, he declined to share “specific intelligence” on Russian movements of chemical weapons, or any specifics on what our response might be. Sometimes, unresponsive is the correct response. When asked next by Bloomberg about whether Xi was considering selling arms to Russia or other supplies, he didn’t share specifics either, but was careful to note that he had spoken to Xi, and made clear our interest in enforcing sanctions, with the unasked for insertion that he made no threats, evidence that he was considering carefully the wider audience for his remarks before speaking.

And so on for another fifteen minutes I won’t bother to detail, as the intention was merely to show what an argument based on specifics might look like for those who need a primer.

As mentioned, this is an echo chamber representing the self-admitted dregs of Hillary’s deplorables. The o/p in this thread celebrates his position at the most extreme end of the fringe. The majority of pushback comes from those who claim, with enough reason to be taken seriously, to be even further afield from the mainstream. If you wished your opinions to be differentiable from those of the chamber’s, you’d have done better to avoid echoing their talking points.

His political opponents have said otherwise, and more, that if you can’t admire him as a person, then you’ve got a problem and you need to do some self-evaluation, because he’s the nicest person they’ve ever met in politics.

Eww. Seriously? Accolades from one swamp creature to another? I've seen Biden explode at ordinary citizens who dare question his claims, something he may not do when among his own elitist kind. He may put on an act that you find convincing, but he has a superior attitude and is not a "a genuinely decent human being" in any sense that I see. If nothing else, just the fact of decades-long deep roots in DC is proof of it.

I’m no Biden apologist, as would be clear if I wasn’t forced to hash through the endless absurdities coming from his detractors. If there are actual reasons to oppose his policies, I’m listening. But what I’m hearing instead are conspiratorial mumblings about dementia and Easter bunnies and making his own choice of which door he wants to use to enter the White House, and listening to his wife.

Policies? You mean pursuing his green policy (driving up oil prices to force people off gasoline), ignoring illegal immigration, usurping states rights trying to force mask mandates, threatening to stack the court, and posting people based on race and gender instead of qualifications? There's more, but I wasn't planning on going into details.

And ice cream for God’s sake.

The ice cream meme is mostly tongue in cheek, like Trump's small hands.

[rogue06]

A stutter isn't causing him to repeatedly refer to his vice president as "President Harris", or causing him to ramble incoherently and stare blankly during press conferences, or causing him to confuse Title 42 immigration policy with the CDC's unconstitutional mask mandate, or causing him to try to shake hands with a non-existent person, or causing him to wander aimlessly when his handlers aren't right there to give him specific direction, or causing him to need instructions for how to respond during public events, or causing him to yell nonsense like "There are 15 fewer democracies in the world today than there were 60 years ago!" or to claim that there has never been a senator from Delaware, and on and on the list goes.

Even his own staff doesn't trust him to speak to the press without sticking both feet in his mouth, which is why you have embarrassing episodes like at the Easter event when a costumed staffer ran up and literally started waving in his face in order to distract him from answering a question about Afghanistan. As he wandered off with a confused look on his face, you could almost hear him thinking, "Am I the only here who sees the giant rabbit?"

He was probably too terrified to mention it fearing that would confirm what everyone already knew.

[Ronson]

After mentioning (above) that Biden makes his appointees based on race and gender instead of qualifications, I wanted to double check. Hmmm... I see no evidence of it. But he does have a preference for hyphenated names.

Biden appointees.jpg

[CivilDiscourse]

Biden has a recognizable speech impediment. He’s a stutterer. He’s worked around the issue his entire life, with limited success. It should go without saying that people without cognitive decline can also have good and bad days, and enjoy ice cream without having to suffer from invidious suppositions. The evidence I’m seeing is that people who insist on seeing cognitive decline will see it regardless of objective evidence

....

I’m no Biden apologist, as would be clear if I wasn’t forced to hash through the endless absurdities coming from his detractors. If there are actual reasons to oppose his policies, I’m listening. But what I’m hearing instead are conspiratorial mumblings about dementia and Easter bunnies and making his own choice of which door he wants to use to enter the White House, and listening to his wife.

And ice cream for God’s sake.

...

Look, given that Trump was essentially backed into taking a cognitive decline test by political opponents, I have 0 sympathy when the same sort of reasoning is used against Biden.

If Trump's mental ability was fair game to endlessly question and mock without actual evidence, so is Bidens.

[seanD]

After mentioning (above) that Biden makes his appointees based on race and gender instead of qualifications, I wanted to double check. Hmmm... I see no evidence of it. But he does have a preference for hyphenated names.

Biden appointees.jpg

It's not so much the idea he's nominating a slew of black women, but the fact he publicly vows to do it beforehand, which diminishes the quality of the pick to nothing but a racial quota. Personally, I believe Biden does that because he's a racist and likes the fact it diminishes the quality of the black pick. But I suppose I'd also accept the belief he does it purely for political leverage, being he's a corrupt career government swamp creature, and a democrat.