@sundance
Get it right. It is ‘Deepfake’.
What else can they claim when the evidence is right there for all to see.
But what do they tell the ones that have a quizzical look and are present and not watching a ‘deepfake’ video? Those folks are, maybe, ‘deepfake’ lying as well?
Just utter nonsense that the best country in the World has a bumbling and senile geriatric as its leader. 
@Raiders22
Ageism is super cool huh? How would you rank Biden as to mental competence of POTUS sitters? There are a few others that are similar but tell me what good does it serve to try and play that card? Is it worthy of pursuit and as you mentioned above that the US deserves to be BETTER than to use ageism to gain a political advantage.
Biden reminds me of Ronnie in MANY ways, the large difference is the media during his ending years did not try to destroy him because the intention of the media was LESS partisan and there used to be value in guarding our own and especially back then when the US was smack in the middle of the cold war evolution. Good thing the media at the time didnt have the ability to make fraudulent memes and hack job video blips to make him look like a senile old fart deserving of being in assisted living versus being POTUS.
Ageism is not about partisan advantage, we should not support and elevate crap like this.
@wallstreetcappers
It is NOT ageism. It is utter incompetence coupled with senility.
It is not cool at all to have him put in that situation.
If you have ever had family or known friends that have been afflicted with this — then you would understand how selfish and cruel it is to demean him in this way.
I have never agreed with his politics — but I sympathize with his current state. It is very sad. But for his family and ‘friends’ to put him through this is wrong.
Quite obviously, he now ranks at the bottom in mental competence. But he did not start very high in the beginning; on his best day he would not have ranked that highly comparatively speaking.
If running for a third term would have been an option — Age was not as big a factor but the onset of Alzheimer’s later in the second term was — Reagan would not have run for that reason and his family and friends would not have let him run. The media certainly made use of it then, and in today’s 24-hour newscycle would have done far more than what Biden is currently going through. Reagan was always quick-witted and sharp — something Biden has never been.
I have often said Jill should have told them right away that he was available for only one term and they better have someone else ready to run in four years. I thought, initially, they had come to her saying he was the best hope to defeat Trump and the country needed him to run — and she agreed.
I now think I may have been wrong.
I now think she likes being First Lady more than caring about Her husband and his legacy.
So, it is absolutely NOT ageism BUT incompetence and senility.
Yoy would not want your father, spouse, or yourself to be put in this situation.
So it is sad and embarrassing on the world stage for the USA. Yet, they are going to try to elect him again.
@wallstreetcappers
Even though you disdain Trump, compare the two and see which seems ‘old’ and ‘senile’. It is not even close.
Age catches some folks far earlier and wise than others — and senility, as well.
There are plenty of energetic and quick-witted seniors — Biden is just not one of them.
The far worse issue — as I keep saying — is that it is a bad look that the best country in the world has these old guys as their ‘best’ to run for President.
Where are the good young, sharp politicians.
Congress is made up of post-retirement age folks as well.
This is just a bad look overall.
But it is more a reflection of the voters and their lack of civic knowledge and political acumen to keep electing these older folks.
@Raiders22
I disagree about incompetence, his decline has come as he has gotten older and same goes for Reagan. I do not know how old you are or how much you remember about Reagan but IMO Reagan was in a far worse condition than Biden. I was an age where I knew what was going on and how he was sheltered, hidden and protected in how the media had access to him and how his protectors shielded him as to project an image of strength. Back then the value of projecting the US as strong vs the USSR was paramount and the media was on board. Now the media is strongly partisan divided and the media objectives are to profit and push a partisan narrative.
Ronnie was worse, his condition was worse IMO but that isnt the point him vs Biden, it is the fact our current media and environment are to promote partisan narrative using whatever tear down strategy necessary...so ageism, insults and attacks, belittling and minimizing in abusive ways...whatever it takes so the politician gets the votes and the network gets the marketing bucks from promoting these strategies.
@wallstreetcappers
I disagree. Yes, later in the second term, sure.
But by all accounts, Biden is at that point now. AND he is attempting to be President for another 4 years! By that point Reagan was not. He was also far more lucid than Biden even at the end of that term. But in the first term it was not even close.
So, no one was discussing IF he SHOULD run again. Just the same as Biden for the last couple of years — whether they should consider the 25th etc. So, very different dynamics now.
For sure, projection on the world stage was important then — even though by time Reagan had put the USSR too far behind, etc.
BUT now the world stage projection is important as well — since the USA is the sole superpower now. Instead, he is made fun of around the world. Australia has an almost daily montage of his mishaps and misspeaks going.
Why not go ahead and replace him NOW. There are quite a few younger, more competent, Democrats that can beat Trump.
It is more than sad at this point — it is ridiculous.
@Raiders22
The larger point is that the media forwards the ridicule and the partisan attacks, that was not the case when Reagan was in the seat. The media protected Reagan and now skewers Biden EVEN IF he is in a bad state. The objective of the media now is to partisan divide and profit off marketing clicks and dollars.
Back during Ronnie I was probably like most average doobies just pro-USA and unaware of any party this vs party that but I was aware of the perception based media with regards to how the position was guarded and held at a high level of respect and value.
Starting I would say during the Obama admin the concept of protecting the office of the POTUS and not partisan destroying the POTUS for financial gain began to go down the tubes. Even with Clinton and his affairs and issues AND the GOP onslaught of attacks towards him, the media narrative and approach was very very different. Now the media does not care the impact or the damage to the person in office regardless of age or even party...its just make money off sensationalism and debase to make a profit.
@wallstreetcappers
For sure the media has changed over the years. But it is mostly the Rightwing media and the social media that have done the ridiculing. Quite obviously if it were Trump in that situation the mainstream would have a field day with it. Absolutely, they would have had a field day with Reagan as well had it been this bad or if the media then had been as constant or if social media had been around.
But, I disagree that that is the larger point.
The larger point is still why they have not had Biden withdraw by now. There is no need for this and it only hurts his legacy and makes him look sad.
It also makes them look weak, like they cannot find a better candidate at this point. They had 4 years to find someone else and did not. This can only hurt Biden's chances of winning -- at no point does it help.
So, it lends itself to the speculation that the folks behind the scenes that are 'controlling' Biden and really 'running' things do not want to chance giving that power up. Whether that is valid or not is another issue. But, it should not even be thought about for the leader of the only superpower in the World to not be in full control.
@Raiders22
That is more about party control same goes for your side and congress doobs on both sides. Why would Diane be around and Nancy, why is Mitch dragging himself through the halls and why did so many politicians hang around well past their point of good use? The party forces these participants to stand in place to do their bidding and that is reality.
Why would your side put up the non-conservative charlatan populist when he goes against so many core attributes you hold so strongly to? Why would your party let the Trump organization take over control of the party completely? Why would your party be involved with the ultra faction project 2025? Why would your party be involved in destroying the separation of the POTUS and government employment via expansion of presidential powers?
The extremists are trying to take over the government and destroy the rights and freedoms that others have, others that are not ultra-conservative Christians and your party is spearheading the ability for one of the three branches to reek havoc over the other two...not good.
@wallstreetcappers
Correct. Both parties need younger folks involved and in office.
But being old and sharp is far different than being old and senile. So, as with any job, if you are capable and sharp that is fine.
But if you are not, then you should be replaced. I may not agree with Nancy at all -- but she does not seem senile.
So, with experience and connections and things of that sort -- they are not past their point of good use.
Besides, the voters keep voting them in.
The rest has nothing to do with the senile issue or replacing a candidate that may not be viable mentally to run the country.
A lot of it is extreme hyperbole and does not have much merit to me.
But for sure the USA needs more viable parties and better, younger candidates. As I say, it is a bad reflection when the 'best' that can be offered are two geriatric guys -- one that is showing a lot of signs of dementia and one that half the country has unhinged hatred for.
@Raiders22
The "rest" is the same issue so while you swept the most important part under the rug saying it is not the issue, it actually IS the issue. The "rest" is control, power and domination for partisan purposes. That is the same issue about Biden being trucked out there and why others stick around its for party control and partisan objectives.
I am much much more concerned with this project 2025 than most any other issue we are going to be dealing with. Giving presidential powers that can single handedly wreck the separation between the exec branch and the other branches is extremely dangerous to democracy and our freedoms. It is a way your party is trying to seize power and completely control critical aspects of democracy for ultra-conservative purposes. Its sickening and more important than if Biden is more or less coherent than Reagan was.
@wallstreetcappers
No sir. I was addressing his point about the 'deepfake' and whether Biden is showing signs of senility -- not Biden's, or Trump's, policies.
Maybe, maybe there is some validity to the Right's assertion that they want to maintain 'control' with Biden. I am not that jaded...yet.
Sure, you can argue that like they do. Okay...and? Both parties do that...and? They worry they cannot control Trump...and?
My point has only to do with Biden really showing signs of senility. So, why not get a person that still has their wits about them to run? There is no doubt that any of the likely candidates they could choose could be somewhat controlled. So, I do not think that is the issue as much as the pundits want to say.
I think it is more likely they are worried another candidate has worse chances against Trump. I do not believe that. I think people are less apt to vote for a senile old man than they would be a younger one -- or even an older man or woman that is altogether in the head.
The rest is still a separate discussion. Sure, people act like they are scared to death if Trump wins of what will happen.
That is utter nonsense and completely a scare tactic to make sure a person will vote AGAINST Trump and not necessarily FOR Biden.
Obviously, Trump was President for 4 years and nothing as extreme as they say will happen even remotely came close to happening. So what makes them think it would be so extreme this time? Just a scare tactic.
Quite surely, the policies would reverse in some cases -- but that is always the situation. No chance of extreme groups getting agendas passed -- Congress is too evenly split for that. Trump will not install himself as dictator. He did not do it before; it would not be allowed anyway.
Bottom line to me is the same: Biden should be replaced. Maybe they do it after the debate or at the convention. But give the next person a running start.
The odds have shifted tremendously now away from Newsom. But they should consider him or Clinton and, maybe, Obama.
The policy stuff we will always disagree on.
@Raiders22
Problem is last time Trump from every perspective had no chance to win and really didnt win, the scheme worked and the DNC was not thinking that the scheme was the play. So that time there was no project Trump, the background organization of this project was not in place. This time that project is being orchestrated in advance of the election.
I know if I say go read up on it you will not but maybe others will go and check out exactly what the ultra-conservative agenda is with this and how it completely removes proper checks and balances between one of the three branches and gives the exec branch pretty much totalitarianism control over most every aspect of government. The extreme ultra-conservative agenda PER the organization putting this project 2025 in place is abhorrently shocking. It is funny how your side is so strongly about rights of the citizen and protecting the purity of our country, yet this project 2025 is a complete shocking partisan takeover of the government.
@wallstreetcappers
Of course he had a chance to win, he had won the time before -- some will still argue the 'shady stuff' against him last time, etc. But of course he had a chance. Just because he was the incumbent and the country is fairly split anyway.
There is always this issue with any agenda from the opposite side in any election.
If you can look at any agenda and not see where they are coming from -- it simply means you do not understand their thought process and reasoning behind it.
This is ancient in politics -- even before Gingrich's agenda.
Take any part of it -- the Climate Change, for example -- and break it down and read up on their reasoning behind it. You will find that they have some valid points -- whether you agree with the cause(s) or not. For example, that is a LOTY of money and a LOT of regulations. Is it really necessary?
Take even the economy -- we have discussed the FED on here before. You know where I stand on that issue. They have very good points with that.
Certainly, we will disagree on the Education part of it. But to me, they have very valid points. I would even go further on that one, of course.
But I would counter that it is more Conservative overall and NOT Ultra-Conservative on a lot of issues.
But at least there are attempts at a plan to address some of the major issues. It is a solid enough counter to the disastrous Democratic agenda that the USA to this point.
But the Left is still using it as another 'scare tactic'. There is little chance of all of the being implemented. Even if some of were to be -- it would likely be watered down too much. They simply do not want any of their policies or regulations reversed and want to further their Leftist agenda.
@Raiders22
The principals they are wanting to put in place are not for the better good of all of society and Ive not seen ANY scare tactics in the media about this, there should be but I only found out from watching John Oliver who had a large bit on it..I do not follow the main media at all and while Oliver is a wacky dude he is not an extreme one sided liberal, he has gone after Biden and liberals more often than say Steve Colbert who is his contemporary. I hadnt heard of it but once I saw his segment on it I started researching a bit on my own and Oliver is on point with his observations.
The group in charge of the project is as ultra conservative as they come and some of the views of those in leadership are shockingly concerning. I think you are severely glossing over the real damage they are wanting to inflict and you cant put lipstick on a chain saw and call it good, the racist homophobic extremism they are suggesting has no place in the USA, but to me the worst aspect is how one branch of the government is looking to take over power to others that they have no place in doing so..it is a complete takeover of the government and yet the general public are more concerned with memes on tiktok and bashing Biden that they are completely unaware that this project will potentially take away the very rights and liberties we claim as important. Even if you do not personally like abortion or LGBT you cant discriminate and create an environment of extremism that they want to do.
Charter schools are not the answer to the problem with education either, it is a power grab and creates divide between those with means and those without.
...exactly what the ultra-conservative agenda is with this and how it completely removes proper checks and balances between one of the three branches and gives the exec branch pretty much totalitarianism control over most every aspect of government. The extreme ultra-conservative agenda PER the organization putting this project 2025 in place is abhorrently shocking. It is funny how your side is so strongly about rights of the citizen and protecting the purity of our country, yet this project 2025 is a complete shocking partisan takeover of the government.
Says it better than I. 
Did you even read what it doesn't do.....like secure our border?
Didn't your boy build a wall to solve this problem? Wasn't it during his multiple Infrastructure weeks?
I understand you don't like Joe but what I don't understand is how you can support the lying thieving alternative.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
