• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Leonormous Boozer said:
I think he thought he was doing what was best for his party and country at all times. In my (limited) experience with older people whose cognitive abilities are deteriorating, they are always the last to accept or recognise that it's happening, truly think Joe thought he was fine through all of this.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but seemingly not. And if he couldn't recognise that, then you can only conclude he's not medically fit for that office. I'm not an expert, but I do know that you don't deteriorate overnight - he and others will have known, probably for a while, that he wasn't as sharp as he needed to be and the possible direction of travel. Quite apart from the diminished energy that also comes with age - he'd have been 86 at the end of a 2nd term.

Additionally he's been surrounded by highly paid advisers and family who would all have been acutely aware of what the real situation was. And, you'd like to think, would have been frank in telling him so.

So whether you blame Biden personally and / or those around him this situation was totally avoidable and shouldn't have arisen.

There's a reason most people retire or reduce their responsibilities in their 60s.

On a personal level, Biden seems decent and I'm sure will get whatever support he needs. But he shouldn't have been in the conversation for POTUS this time round.
 
Vieux Talonneur said:
Additionally he's been surrounded by highly paid advisers and family who would all have been acutely aware of what the real situation was. And, you'd like to think, would have been frank in telling him so.
Click to expand...
Supposedly this was the problem - rumours that Pelosi had to get pollsters to tell him directly what the reality was this weekend to force his hand
 
The issue now is this flips the focus onto Trump's age. He's what 77 now and he's also shown signs of mixing up people's names and showing cognitive decline. Different ball game now. #anyoneelsebutTrump.

Dems now have to unite under 1 candidate otherwise they're toast anyway.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if it was Jill and Hunter who were the ones desperate to cling on. I think Joe is a decent man but had reached a stage where he was just doing as he was told (or at least trying to).

Think Harris will need a major shot in the arm including universal party backing and Barack & Michelle endorsing her and joining her on the campaign trail. Not sure that'll happen if they think Trump has it in the bag.
 
Last edited:
Vieux Talonneur said:
Maybe, but seemingly not. And if he couldn't recognise that, then you can only conclude he's not medically fit for that office. I'm not an expert, but I do know that you don't deteriorate overnight - he and others will have known, probably for a while, that he wasn't as sharp as he needed to be and the possible direction of travel. Quite apart from the diminished energy that also comes with age - he'd have been 86 at the end of a 2nd term.

Additionally he's been surrounded by highly paid advisers and family who would all have been acutely aware of what the real situation was. And, you'd like to think, would have been frank in telling him so.

So whether you blame Biden personally and / or those around him this situation was totally avoidable and shouldn't have arisen.

There's a reason most people retire or reduce their responsibilities in their 60s.

On a personal level, Biden seems decent and I'm sure will get whatever support he needs. But he shouldn't have been in the conversation for POTUS this time round.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'd consider any of that selfish though especially in the early stages of cognitive decline. It was also only in recent months that it got to the point where anyone thought he should step aside for Harris, she's that uninspiring.

He didn't want to run in 2020 but came in as the only option to run against Trump. Chose Harris then from an obviously weak pool of candidates. Not reacting to how uninspiring she is early in his term was a mistake but considering there are seemingly no viable alternatives at this stage either it seems like a party failure as a whole post 2016 election far more than a Biden one.
 
Leonormous Boozer said:
I don't think I'd consider any of that selfish though especially in the early stages of cognitive decline. It was also only in recent months that it got to the point where anyone thought he should step aside for Harris, she's that uninspiring.

He didn't want to run in 2020 but came in as the only option to run against Trump. Chose Harris then from an obviously weak pool of candidates. Not reacting to how uninspiring she is early in his term was a mistake but considering there are seemingly no viable alternatives at this stage either it seems like a party failure as a whole post 2016 election far more than a Biden one.
Click to expand...

Well none of us know exactly what happened, but it was the original description of "selfless" I was railing against. And stand by that. His position was untenable.

Agree there are wider failings. But regardless of VP or opponent, if Biden wasn't up to it he shouldn't have been in the race. Interesting to see what wording he uses to explain his withdrawal later in the week.
 
Leonormous Boozer said:
I don't think I'd consider any of that selfish though especially in the early stages of cognitive decline. It was also only in recent months that it got to the point where anyone thought he should step aside for Harris, she's that uninspiring.

He didn't want to run in 2020 but came in as the only option to run against Trump. Chose Harris then from an obviously weak pool of candidates. Not reacting to how uninspiring she is early in his term was a mistake but considering there are seemingly no viable alternatives at this stage either it seems like a party failure as a whole post 2016 election far more than a Biden one.
Click to expand...
I think Democrats post Obama have been utterly clueless about what they wanted. It seems their entire plan was about putting forward people who had links to Obama hoping they could get in off their association with him. It seems like they put up barriers to anyone daring to challenge the rightful Obama associate from taking over. This has now all come back to bite them with no inspiring candidates and being lumbered with Biden, who shouldn't have been their candidate in the first place. One again they have shown a complete lack of any sort forward placing and again are going to get done over by the republicans ruthless planning for things years or even decades in advance.

I don't think Democrats know what they want, which is why the republicans have succeeded in corrupting all levels of government to unprecedented levels.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
I think Democrats post Obama have been utterly clueless about what they wanted. It seems their entire plan was about putting forward people who had links to Obama hoping they could get in off their association with him. It seems like they put up barriers to anyone daring to challenge the rightful Obama associate from taking over. This has now all come back to bite them with no inspiring candidates and being lumbered with Biden, who shouldn't have been their candidate in the first place. One again they have shown a complete lack of any sort forward placing and again are going to get done over by the republicans ruthless planning for things years or even decades in advance.

I don't think Democrats know what they want, which is why the republicans have succeeded in corrupting all levels of government to unprecedented levels.
Click to expand...

They also messed up by giving Hilary another shot at the nomination after Obama beat her eight years earlier. She was not popular and never President material.
 
General Melchett said:
They also messed up by giving Hilary another shot at the nomination after Obama beat her eight years earlier. She was not popular and never President material.
Click to expand...
I agree she wasn't popular but she most definitely was President material, especially when you consider the fact she was running against Trump.
 
I think its fair Hilary was the nominee against Trump. She had oodles of experience and there was a reason that once she decided to take a second crack at it she was the presumptive nominee.

Its that plan not working out where the Dems **** the bed.

(That and an absolute crap electoral system where one person wins over 50% of the vote and looses).
 
General Melchett said:
Yeah well neither are President material IMHO but it's not me who gets a say in the poll that actually counts
Click to expand...
I disagree. She's was extremely well qualified, very knowledgable and would've had no difficulty carrying out her presidential duties. She was a pretty good speaker as well. All good traits that would make her, in my view, presidential.

It was her public perception that went against her.
 
McTallshort said:
Yeah, lost to a game show host
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with whether she was presidential or not. In fact, just like Brexit at the time, one of her problems was that she was too presidential as the antiestablishment feeling was very strong at the time and people foolishly believed that Trump wasn't part of the establishment.
 
Welsh Exile said:
Which has nothing to do with whether she was presidential or not. In fact, just like Brexit at the time, one of her problems was that she was too presidential as the antiestablishment feeling was very strong at the time and people foolishly believed that Trump wasn't part of the establishment.
Click to expand...
Absolutely does. If you can't get elected President you're not presidential and to fail to get elected while running against a game show host who was then defeated by a corpse 4 years later shows she didn't have what it takes.

I really don't get why people make all these excuses about HC, She lost to Trump, a man that had never won an election in his life, who was really only running for **** and giggles and she failed badly.
 
Last edited:
Welsh Exile said:
I disagree. She's was extremely well qualified, very knowledgable and would've had no difficulty carrying out her presidential duties. She was a pretty good speaker as well. All good traits that would make her, in my view, presidential.

It was her public perception that went against her.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I think Trump has lowered the bar greatly but in spite of him my bar remains very high and may differ to yours and others.

For the role of American President, I am expecting a truly high calibre individual who possesses competence, leadership skills, presence, the ability to influence/connect with people (domestically & globally) and of course charisma etc. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were the two (in my lifetime) who ticked these boxes. They could speak and leave people with a feeling of hope, optimism and generally feeling good about themselves. I watched Hilary speak a lot and while she may been able to do the job competently I just never warmed to her but everyone is entitled to their own opinion and level of expectation about the role.
 
See, this charisma thing is overrated. I prefer competence and integrity over that trait.
 

Similar threads

Bada-Bing!
Antisocial, societal issues thread
7 8 9
Replies
163
Views
7K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Biking thread
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
5K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Ukraine War thread
27 28 29
Replies
566
Views
24K
Which Tyler
Which Tyler
T
Is anyone using a club management system for their local club?
Replies
0
Views
887
Try-Hard Tackler
T
M
Had to stare someone down at a red light
Replies
6
Views
1K
The Seeker
The Seeker

Latest posts

Top