You moderate Repubs should join the Democratic Party, here's why.

The thing is, if elected, I don't think Biden will make even one decision as President. I think he's too far gone for that. His cabinet and the DNC will be running the show.

 

And like I said, I suspect that this is another partisan talking point. I suspect that Biden is not 20% as demented as his opponents want the American electorate to believe. We'll see how he does in the three presidential debates. If he does very well, he'll put this issue to rest. I remember watching a Dem Primaries debate and Biden had an excellent performance, and I was debating the issue in real time in another forum (I wasn't a member here at the time) with some Bernie fans, and even the Bernie fans, the people most interested in seeing Biden sink, and who previously had made vociferous accusations of dementia, said "all right, unfortunately that puts the notion that he is demented to rest."

You are underestimating the functions and role of the President of the United States. He is the one who is supposed to lead the Cabinet, not the other way around, and I'm certainly not sure that he is THAT far gone that he can't lead his cabinet.

As a matter of fact I remember reading an opinion piece by a female psychiatrist, a professor from Yale Medical School, saying that she didn't see any striking signs of dementia when she listened to Biden in his various public appearances.

Of course the opposition likes to depict him this way... forgetting that Trump had his dose of senior moments too. Just recently Trump couldn't pronounce Yosemite. Trump forgot where his own father was born.

These elderly politicians, both of them, of course will have a senior moment from time to time. But neither one is clinically demented, in my opinion. Not Biden, and not Trump. Opponents may need to find some other way to bash them, specially if both engage in a spirited debate with a commendable cognitive performance.

Also his opponents like to depict him as dumb. Well, he is gaffe prone which is more a social skills issue than an intelligence issue. I fail to see how someone manages to win a Senate seat several times, the vice-presidency twice, and make millions of dollars in the process, being so dumb.

I think Biden is by all accounts likely 1000 times more successful than the people here in an anonymous Internet forum who like to call him dumb. He is probably more intelligent than most, too. I wouldn't call him one of the most intelligent politicians out there (someone like Bill Clinton in his prime was likely way more intelligent), but then, Trump doesn't strike me as highly intelligent either.

Trump is also very underestimated by his opponents.

In my opinion, while neither one is cognitively intact and neither one is intellectually brilliant, nether one is demented and neither one is dumb.

 

I really don't need to defend the position that Biden has declining cognitive issues; the most recent CBS interview speaks for itself. I welcome the Vice-President to many more interviews and look forward to the debates.

 

Yes, let’s join with the moderate Democrats...oh wait, those all have become Independents or moved to the Republican Party.

So let’s join the moderate Marxist Socialist party that’s left and.. LOL

 

I never said Biden doesn't have any cognitive issues. I just said it's probably 20% of what his opponents expect or want to claim.

While I haven't watched this CBS interview you're talking about so I can't have an opinion there, yes, we'll see. Given that Trump is not the sharpest tool in the box either, the advantage for Trump you believe you'll see in the debates may not be as big as you expect. Biden won't be debating a 40-year-old rocket scientist. He'll be debating a man of his same age group, who has had plenty of senior citizen moments himself, and can barely spell in English, as the numerous errors in his Tweets demonstrate. Also, the debate will feature someone who is often seen as quite sympathetic and benign, versus someone who is often seen as odious and with a contemptuous scowl. In these debates it's not just what you say but also how you say it.

I particularly remember the veep debate between Biden and Paul Ryan. Before the debate, right wingers all expected the young and intelligent Ryan to trounce a gaffe-prone and much older Biden. Well, what happened? The exact opposite. Biden mopped the floor with Ryan, who got quite discombobulated. That was a spanking. So, sure, Biden ever since has aged more and may not be as sharp as he was against Ryan, but again, maybe he doesn't need to be because his opponent now is not as sharp as Ryan either.

Maybe what we'll see will be a pathetic performance by both, which won't change the mind of any voter who is already committed, like a low-scoring tie. Besides, it may not even matter that much. I was reading today that Biden's internal polling has shown that Dem voters aren't particular enthusiastic about his candidacy, but are very motivated to vote Trump out. They'd vote for the flea on the back of their worst enemy's dog if that flea were running against Trump so as long as Biden doesn't start drooling and doesn't pee in his pants in the middle of the debate, he probably won't hurt his chances that much. The people who think he's demented are the same ones who have already decided that they will vote for Trump anyway.

 

Yes, moderate Republicans, become Democrats. That way when you run for president they don't accuse you of wanting to enslave black people.



Or accuse you of being George Wallace, stirring up the climate of Jim Crow, like the epitome of human garbage, John Lewis, did to McCain:

"What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history," Lewis said in a statement issued today for Politico's Arena forum. "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse."

Lewis didn't accuse McCain of imitating Wallace, but suggested there were similarities.

"George Wallace never threw a bomb," Lewis noted. "He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."​

 

I think that you are overplaying the concept of not following through on campaign promises. While it is true that there are always many campaign promises that do not come to fruition, that is typically because they were unable to pass something legislatively or they ran into some type of obstacle that precludes it from happening. In that sense a campaign "promise" is a promise to try to make it happen. The realities of governing often times make lots of ideological wishes unattainable.

Not being able to pass something legislatively or not being able to make a desire happen is much different than a "promise" that they never intended to try to make happen. If Biden tells his constituents that he is going to revamp criminal justice to a more progressive ideation as he has done, and then he turns around and returns to being the law and order guy that he once was.....that is not OK. That is much different than not delivering on a campaign promise.

It feels like you are trying to excuse that level of deception away in your mind by acting as if that is just a run of the mill not following through on a campaign promise. Simultaneously, you are ignoring what he says, and filling in the blanks to make him what you want him to be. Personally, when someone tells me who they are, I listen to them. If they are fundamentally lying about who they are (precisely what a return to law and order Joe would be), which is what you seem to be counting on... I see that as an enormous negative. I fail to see how your position is much of an argument for his candidacy. If anything, I think you have laid out a strong case for not voting for him.

 

I remember watching that debate, and do not remember anything even remotely resembling your description. I googled it and found this link from the Washington Post which is a source that all reasonable minds can agree is a pretty hardcore leftist news outlet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-biden-ryan-debate-and-the-art-of-not-losing/

Their description is essentially the polar opposite of yours. So is my memory of the debate. Respectfully, I think you may be "filling in the blanks" again.

 

In this case we'll all have to sit out the election and all subsequent elections from now on, because ALL politicians lie. And in this particular election, if you think that this is a strong case for not voting for him, then your only alternative is to sit out or vote third party, because Trump is 100 times a bigger liar than Biden.

 

Behind a paywall, your link. But there are other links. You'll see that I'm not "filling in the blanks." Here; I said discombobulated, this journalist said overwhelmed, pretty close:

Joe Biden's alpha-male display leaves Paul Ryan overwhelmed in VP debate

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/12/joe-biden-paul-ryan-debate

Now, see this other source, even more incisive in a description of the debate that matches exactly what I was saying. Paul Ryan back on his heels, LOL - so much for your polite, but subtle accusation that I'm making stuff up.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2012/10/joe-biden-wins-vice-presidential-debate

So, I'm sorry, but come again? The pole opposite of mine? I believe that it's your memory that is playing tricks on you. So you don't remember how Mitt Romney dominated the first debate against Obama, and to everybody's surprise, Biden turned the tide in his debate with Ryan???

Oh wow.

 

I am going to 100% leave Trump out of this conversation because he is expressly not a part of this topic.

Yes, all politicians lie. What you are suggesting is that while campaigning as a progressive justice system reformer, when in office he will actually be old law and order Joe. That is more than a campaign lie. That would be like Trump campaigning on closing the border as he did, but then when in office becoming a complete open borders globalist. There are gradations of lies, and that level is beyond the pale. If he became law and order Joe, that would be a lie that is so positively fundamental and he would have misled his passionate supporters to such a degree, that would not be acceptable. The entirety of BLM would rightly turn 100% against him. He could not and would not do that because if for no other reason that would be political suicide. You are just filling in the blanks to make him out to be what you want him to be. Thinking that he is going to return to old law and order Joe, even if that were his true desire, is bereft of reality. Similarly, a Republican could not campaign against abortion and then get in office and suddenly become pro abortion. Such an assumption transcends what would be an acceptable political lie and/or broken campaign promise.

 

Here you go with a cut and paste of that same Washington Post link....

The Fix
The Biden-Ryan debate, and the art of not losing

By
Aaron Blake
Senior reporter
Oct. 12, 2012 at 6:30 a.m. EDT


Neither side scored anything close to a knockout -- or even knockdown -- in the first and only vice presidential debate Thursday, and both sides can walk away feeling just fine about that.

The fact is that, going into the debate, each side had much more to lose than to gain in a vice presidential debate that rarely has much effect. And by the end of the night, the consensus was that both men -- and, by extension, both campaigns -- emerged about the same, with their bases happy and no major strikes against them.


(A CNN poll conducted after the debate confirms this, with 48 percent saying Paul Ryan won and 44 percent saying Vice President Biden won -- a virtual tie. And majorities thought each man performed better than expected.)







Nothing about it resembles your description.....even slightly. I would have to say that the Washington Post sort of Trumps Vanity Fair in journalistic chops....by a mile. They are also a well known leftist outlet which wouldnt typically lead an organization to incorrectly dub the opposition as the winner or at worst tied, while really being "spanked" as you claimed.

 

Question of opinion. Clearly there were others who had MY recollection, so please put down the accusation that I was filling in the blanks. Actually Vanity Fair is better than you may think... Their piece on how the Trump Administration tried to influence the use of hydroxychloroquine in New York is a phenomenal piece of journalism. And your argument that voters were divided in who they thought won, is the rule in most debates given how polarized we all are - Republican-leaning viewers will sustain that Ryan "won" while Democrat-leaning viewers will sustain that Biden "won." What else is new??? It happens after every debate. So this poll doesn't "confirm" anything. How many people got interviewed? How representative they were of the larger demographics? This poll merely shows that the ones interviewed, had these *opinions*, it doesn't "confirm" that a candidate indeed had a better performance than the other one. I have no idea why the Washington Post journalist decided to be more circumspect in his evaluation. Even the most leftist sources may have people there who are more moderate. Like recently I was talking about the rightist bias of The Wall Street Journal and someone showed me an article published there that had a distinct leftist take. Anyway, I could keep going and mentioning more and more sources that were very impressed with Biden's performance if I'm so inclined to extend a Google search on it, but I'm sure you'll just keep repeating that the great Washington Post trumps them...

"Nothing about it resembles my description... even slightly" in YOUR source. I posted two that do resemble and even go beyond my description. So clearly the issue is a lot more controversial than YOU want to depict. You made it sound like I was making up the most far-fetched take on that debate... when other journalists agree with me, so, your position is far from a consensus, and certainly mine doesn't deserve your accusation of "filling in the blanks."

MY recollection of it (I did watch the debate, live) is VERY different from Aaron Blake's view. Sorry, but I'll go with what I recall rather than some pundit's, Washington Post or not. Oh, and by the way, that turnaround point kept going, Barack recovered in part thanks to his running mate's injection of momentum, and the end result was a rather convincing win by the Obama-Biden ticket. So much for all this "winning" that according to the CNN poll, Ryan scored, LOL.

 

And yet, this has happened... for example, with Tulsi Gabbard's reversal of her position on gay marriage. Others did, too, on this and other topics. Have you ever heard the expression flip-flopping? It happens all the time, in politics.

Mentioning a vote for Trump or not when you indicated that what we are saying of Biden if true would be a reason not to vote for Biden, is ABSOLUTELY topical at least as far as our discussion is going, given that Biden will be facing Trump in November, duh! YOU mentioned the vote, not me. Then I indicated that the main alternative is Trump, obviously, since they are facing each other (and I did mention the other minor alternatives of third parties or sitting out), so if the matter is that of the two main candidates one is disqualified for lying, well, the other one is too, right?

There is nothing off-topic about it as I was responding to your assertion about a VOTE in November. I didn't suddenly say "Trump is a liar!!!" I only said that if lying disqualifies a vote for Biden LIKE YOU SAID, then it also disqualifies a vote for Trump as he is a bigger liar (a fact most would not deny). If it is off-topic, then you were the one who veered off, when you said you can't vote for Biden for this reason. The topic is Moderate Republicans Should Join the Democratic Party. The topic is not VOTING for Biden in November. I merely followed your lead.

 

Nah, try Venezuela. That socialist paradise just waiting for U.S. leftist oversight. Consider --- Donks surely couldn't make it worse down there and the stopped-clock theory says they might even stumble into a solution given enough time and VENEZUELAN money to do it, not ours.

 

The old guard ****ing suck, just like the old guard of the Democrats.

Which is why over 90% of Republicans support Trump. Never Trump looks like a bad joke at this point.

 

Then those who kill babies do not exist, which means there goes the vast majority of funding for Planned Parenthood.

If baby killers do not exist, is it therefore legal to kill them? If they don't exist, is it therefore legal to set up open season on those nonexistent prey? I mean, they're not real, so why not have a little fun with it. Not babies, so the killers aren't real either. Easy to equate.

How many of the ones who don't exist would stop not doing the baby killing, if tables got turned on the baby killers?

 

Indeed it is a question of opinion. However, in a world where almost all presidential debates are mostly a draw where both sides can claim victory, for you to pick out that particular obscure VP debate and pretend like it was some sort of undeniable "spanking" is sort of preposterous. In the last 30 years, there have maybe been 2 or 3 debates that legitimately fit that bill, and this most certainly was NOT one of them. For you to try and point to the fact that Obama won as far as evidence of your "spanking" that most certainly was not reflected in either the Washington Post and by extension the CNN poll they referenced in that Washington Poll link, is sort of silly. That aprticular debate was about as non descript as they come.

Once again, you are just filling in the blanks.

 

Tulsi Gabbard was not elected by virtue of her stance on gay marriage. For that matter, her party supports gay marriage. By "flip flopping" to supporting gay marriage, she was endearing herself more to Democrat voters, not the other way around. That distinction is vitally important. What you are proposing with Biden is that he will flip flop to go AGAINST his party on their most high profile issue ( progressive policing) of the summer leading up to the election. The only possibility that Biden has of winning is by overwhelming support and a high turnout of the black community, and you are proposing that deep down you somehow know that he is simply going to turn around and be the old tough on crime Joe again in a complete reversal of what he has told all of those black voters on their signature issue. He could not do that in a million years politically ( even if he wanted to), and no, that prospect isnt analogous to Tulsi Gabbard flip flopping on gay marriage which is a position favored by her party.

Once again......you are simply filling in the blanks. Hell, in your mind, Joe Biden is anyone you can concoct in your head. I am sure in the deep recesses of your mind that you have him made out to be one hell of a man. I wish I could meet that guy.

 

I fully agree it's not optimal for either party this cycle (and perhaps this century). From reading your post I get the impression you miss the Zell Millers with integrity, the stand-up guys like that Missouri haberdasher who nuked all those Japs to save a million Yanks. I heard their side as well over two years in Japan. Their reach exceeded their grasp. It truly was time to put feudalism to rest, except in some truly eye-popping movies.

We make snide cracks, but what truly HAS happened to the honorable Democrats of old?

I'm old enough to miss the colorful Daniel Patrick Moynihan, with whom I often disagreed but respected his reasoning for opinions he actually held onto, not changed for convenience. But in all sincerity I cannot endorse the philandering JFK or his brothers, and particularly their ex-gangster father. Sorry. That whole crew had issues.

If (the generic) you vote Republican but want Dems more honest than our current bunch, you are not necessarily a partisan but very clearly a patriot.

 

That's a keyboard full you typed there quiller. I'll need another cup of coffee and give a try later. Lol.

Seriously, every time I hear "baby killers" in regard to abortion, it reminds me of the dead baby jokes we told in high school. That's how ridiculous it is. If you want to reduce the incidence of abortion, you need to get serious. Reducing the condition of pregnancy to a simple act of "murder" is a self-defeating strategy. When the pro-life argument reminds me of high school jokes, it's a given they have nothing serious to add.

 

All four questions can be answered with: "They emptied the asylums."

 

But, but, but you claim they're not babies, so if the baby doesn't exist, then why not allow us to kill the imaginary baby killers? It's all imaginary, yes?

I didn't go to your high school. Life was no joke at all in mine.

 

Just TRY to do that without cut and pasting. Go ahead. Tell us how you did it if you didn't do that.