The Trump Presidency

First topic message reminder :

Well we'll wait and see about Arizona. Pundits seem to think it's a done deal; they don't seem to have considered it's only Election Day votes left to count.

Ohio called, but Texas and Florida not, which is very poor. Iowa should be called soon for Trump. Trump with healthy leads in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania...he needs 'em if Arizona's going blue.

Georgia seems to be faltering for Trump, but he's still ahead for now. North Carolina's probably in recount territory. unless Trump has more votes to secure it.

This mainstream media bias is quite something. Trump 49-48 ahead in Montana, 50% voted...oh yeah, that's too close to call. Trump 50-48 ahead in Virginia, 76% voted....oh yeah, we're calling that for Biden.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not fair if it makes it more effort to vote for members of one party than another.
And it's not good for democracy to make it more effort for a significant amount of people to vote, regardless of their affiliation, given that "In 2019 there were 33 allegations of 'impersonation' at polling stations and only one conviction out of over 58 million votes cast."

What's wrong with the barcode idea mentioned here -
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/tory-voter-id-laws-attempt-rig-elections-not-improve-them-2020327
"When pilot schemes were run in different councils to test out various options for reform, among the most successful for voter turnout were those that didn’t use photo ID and instead put a barcode on polling cards and required voters to turn up with them."

But, as established, there is no evidence that it now requires more effort for members of one party to vote than another party.

I disagree - to me it seems like there is evidence when viewed overall.

Why are Oyster cards allowed as valid ID for older people, but not for younger people?

Minor inconvenience for tiny minority of voters = voter suppression.      

Ah, so you don't mind voter suppression if it only affects small numbers. OK, I'll leave you to your love of democracy on your own terms.

Bored now.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not fair if it makes it more effort to vote for members of one party than another.
And it's not good for democracy to make it more effort for a significant amount of people to vote, regardless of their affiliation, given that "In 2019 there were 33 allegations of 'impersonation' at polling stations and only one conviction out of over 58 million votes cast."

What's wrong with the barcode idea mentioned here -
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/tory-voter-id-laws-attempt-rig-elections-not-improve-them-2020327
"When pilot schemes were run in different councils to test out various options for reform, among the most successful for voter turnout were those that didn’t use photo ID and instead put a barcode on polling cards and required voters to turn up with them."

But, as established, there is no evidence that it now requires more effort for members of one party to vote than another party.

I disagree - to me it seems like there is evidence when viewed overall.

Why are Oyster cards allowed as valid ID for older people, but not for younger people?

Well the only evidence I've seen so far is one survey, which seems to indicate lower-income people are less likely to have photo ID than higher-income people, but we know nothing of the weighting behind it or the likelihood of such people voting. What we do know from government data is that under 29s are more likely to have photo ID than older groups, and non-whites are more likely to have photo ID than whites, both groups of which lean more towards Labour than Tory, and it seems to run counter to your assertion that voters on the left are more affected by this change.

Out of interest, do you think registering to vote is a form of voter suppression?

That's an interesting question. In the modern age, where most everyone can read and write, I don't see it as an issue, but doubtless it did disenfranchise people in the past (as indeed did not allowing women to vote).

Do you doubt the outcome of any previous UK elections where photo ID was not involved?

Also, wrt to Oyster cards, is it possible for an 18 year to have a photo on it? And if so, why would that not be valid?

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's an interesting question. In the modern age, where most everyone can read and write, I don't see it as an issue, but doubtless it did disenfranchise people in the past (as indeed did not allowing women to vote).

Do you doubt the outcome of any previous UK elections where photo ID was not involved?

Also, wrt to Oyster cards, is it possible for an 18 year to have a photo on it? And if so, why would that not be valid?

An interesting point about literacy, because there are more adults who are described as 'functionally illiterate' (at least 16%) than adults who don't possess correct voter ID (7.5%). So you could argue registering to vote is a bigger hurdle than turning up with correct ID.

I don't know the full ins and outs about Oyster Cards, but it has been said in the House of Lords that: "We cannot permit any workplace ID or student ID card, as we cannot be sure of how rigorous the process is to issue these documents. The 18+ student Oyster photocard and the National Rail card have also been suggested before—unfortunately, currently, the process for applying for these documents is insufficiently secure for the purposes of voting. The final suggestion on the list is the Young Scot National Entitlement Card. This card is accredited by PASS, the National Proof of Age Standards Scheme, and so will already be accepted as proof of identity under the current proposed legislation."

I do not doubt the outcome of any previous UK elections, but there exists a vulnerability which needs to be plugged.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Bored now.

I accept your concession on the matter. Requiring photo ID is not voter suppression.

Yes, I concede defeat. I'm all for making people with inferiority complexes feel better about themselves.

Duty281 wrote:

I do not doubt the outcome of any previous UK elections, but there exists a vulnerability which needs to be plugged.

Does it?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, I concede defeat. I'm all for making people with inferiority complexes feel better about themselves.

I'm glad you have changed your position on photo ID and voting. Having faith in elections is the bedrock of a democratic nation.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, I concede defeat. I'm all for making people with inferiority complexes feel better about themselves.

I'm glad you have changed your position on photo ID and voting. Having faith in elections is the bedrock of a democratic nation.

And I'm glad you think I've changed my position.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

I do not doubt the outcome of any previous UK elections, but there exists a vulnerability which needs to be plugged.

Does it?

Now that it seems likely the Tories lose in 2024...The Country needs to suppress votes just in case there is a fraud voting problem which he concedes doesn't exist....

Makes perfect sense.......Just like changing the boundaries this year so Labour need a 10 point gap to win instead of 7...Because the constituencies may not be fair in a few years time....

Proactivity is a wonderful thing..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

I do not doubt the outcome of any previous UK elections, but there exists a vulnerability which needs to be plugged.

Does it?

Now that it seems likely the Tories lose in 2024...The Country needs to suppress votes just in case there is a fraud voting problem which he concedes doesn't exist....

Makes perfect sense.......Just like changing the boundaries this year so Labour need a 10 point gap to win instead of 7...Because the constituencies may not be fair in a few years time....

Proactivity is a wonderful thing..

The boundaries are unlikely to be changed within the time frame for the 2024/2025 GE.

Voter ID is not voter suppression.

As previously stated, I'd rather Labour were in office than the Tories (not that I like either).

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

I do not doubt the outcome of any previous UK elections, but there exists a vulnerability which needs to be plugged.

Does it?

Now that it seems likely the Tories lose in 2024...The Country needs to suppress votes just in case there is a fraud voting problem which he concedes doesn't exist....

Makes perfect sense.......Just like changing the boundaries this year so Labour need a 10 point gap to win instead of 7...Because the constituencies may not be fair in a few years time....

Proactivity is a wonderful thing..

The boundaries are unlikely to be changed within the time frame for the 2024/2025 GE.

Voter ID is not voter suppression.

As previously stated, I'd rather Labour were in office than the Tories (not that I like either).

Boundary changes are due for this year......

Voter ID is voter suppression.........One simple reason is only right wing parties ever bring it in.

Strange that..Wonder why ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

I do not doubt the outcome of any previous UK elections, but there exists a vulnerability which needs to be plugged.

Does it?

Now that it seems likely the Tories lose in 2024...The Country needs to suppress votes just in case there is a fraud voting problem which he concedes doesn't exist....

Makes perfect sense.......Just like changing the boundaries this year so Labour need a 10 point gap to win instead of 7...Because the constituencies may not be fair in a few years time....

Proactivity is a wonderful thing..

The boundaries are unlikely to be changed within the time frame for the 2024/2025 GE.

Voter ID is not voter suppression.

As previously stated, I'd rather Labour were in office than the Tories (not that I like either).

Boundary changes are due for this year......

Voter ID is voter suppression.........One simple reason is only right wing parties ever bring it in.

Strange that..Wonder why ??

No, the review is meant to be finished this year (by July). It then has to go through Parliament.

Voter ID is not voter suppression. Almost all of Europe has voter ID laws - do you think these countries are all 'suppressing' voters? It's also not the case that only right wing parties bring it in.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

I do not doubt the outcome of any previous UK elections, but there exists a vulnerability which needs to be plugged.

Does it?

Now that it seems likely the Tories lose in 2024...The Country needs to suppress votes just in case there is a fraud voting problem which he concedes doesn't exist....

Makes perfect sense.......Just like changing the boundaries this year so Labour need a 10 point gap to win instead of 7...Because the constituencies may not be fair in a few years time....

Proactivity is a wonderful thing..

The boundaries are unlikely to be changed within the time frame for the 2024/2025 GE.

Voter ID is not voter suppression.

As previously stated, I'd rather Labour were in office than the Tories (not that I like either).

Boundary changes are due for this year......

Voter ID is voter suppression.........One simple reason is only right wing parties ever bring it in.

Strange that..Wonder why ??

No, the review is meant to be finished this year (by July). It then has to go through Parliament.

Voter ID is not voter suppression. Almost all of Europe has voter ID laws.

Many European Countries have iD cards...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

I do not doubt the outcome of any previous UK elections, but there exists a vulnerability which needs to be plugged.

Does it?

Now that it seems likely the Tories lose in 2024...The Country needs to suppress votes just in case there is a fraud voting problem which he concedes doesn't exist....

Makes perfect sense.......Just like changing the boundaries this year so Labour need a 10 point gap to win instead of 7...Because the constituencies may not be fair in a few years time....

Proactivity is a wonderful thing..

The boundaries are unlikely to be changed within the time frame for the 2024/2025 GE.

Voter ID is not voter suppression.

As previously stated, I'd rather Labour were in office than the Tories (not that I like either).

Boundary changes are due for this year......

Voter ID is voter suppression.........One simple reason is only right wing parties ever bring it in.

Strange that..Wonder why ??

No, the review is meant to be finished this year (by July). It then has to go through Parliament.

Voter ID is not voter suppression. Almost all of Europe has voter ID laws.

Many European Countries have iD cards...

And many of them don't have mandatory ID cards...

In any case, 92.5% of GB people already have the relevant ID, it's not as though people from GB had zero ID to start with.

Question for those that think this is some form of deliberate suppression: if one were setting up a democratic election system today, would one reasonably require some form of voter ID for those eligible to vote?

navyblueshorts wrote: Question for those that think this is some form of deliberate suppression: if one were setting up a democratic election system today, would one reasonably require some form of voter ID for those eligible to vote?

While I don't think this is a form of deliberate suppression in the UK (although I can imagine that the groups that disproportionately lack photographic ID are Asian descent women and the elderly), there definitely is an element of this in the US, where the people who lack acceptable ID are disproportionately black (and hence disproportionately Democrat-voting).

With 21st century technology, it is probably not unreasonable - I would though say that everyone should be issued with a photocard National Insurance card on reaching 16 or otherwise when granted permanent resident status. Probably the best option would be to get schools to provide the first photographic ID (OK, I know there are some home schooled etc), and then update on a say 10 yearly cycle using either DVLA or Passport photos.

The point is that everyone should be provided with some form of photographic ID for free.

Obviously, historically this was not a practical option when our voting system was developed, hence the less secure voter registration system currently in place. Despite this, I don't think anyone really doubts the legitimacy of previously-held UK elections. I remember seats being decided by single figure votes, and no-one has ever questioned that the votes were legitimate.

In other words, I think this is a solution to rather a non-problem.

Alas:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65379340

Perhaps the Murdoch empire is trying, belatedly, to wash its dirty laundry? Shame no-one would ever believe they've suddenly acquired a conscience and, sadly, I imagine Carlson will find another home only too soon.

dummy_half wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote: Question for those that think this is some form of deliberate suppression: if one were setting up a democratic election system today, would one reasonably require some form of voter ID for those eligible to vote?

While I don't think this is a form of deliberate suppression in the UK (although I can imagine that the groups that disproportionately lack photographic ID are Asian descent women and the elderly), there definitely is an element of this in the US, where the people who lack acceptable ID are disproportionately black (and hence disproportionately Democrat-voting).

With 21st century technology, it is probably not unreasonable - I would though say that everyone should be issued with a photocard National Insurance card on reaching 16 or otherwise when granted permanent resident status. Probably the best option would be to get schools to provide the first photographic ID (OK, I know there are some home schooled etc), and then update on a say 10 yearly cycle using either DVLA or Passport photos.

The point is that everyone should be provided with some form of photographic ID for free.

Obviously, historically this was not a practical option when our voting system was developed, hence the less secure voter registration system currently in place. Despite this, I don't think anyone really doubts the legitimacy of previously-held UK elections. I remember seats being decided by single figure votes, and no-one has ever questioned that the votes were legitimate.

In other words, I think this is a solution to rather a non-problem.

Good points.
Re. the last part of this, while there may not be much of an actual problem w/ voter fraud, the perception that there is, is apparently quite widespread, and (I think) worsening. Therefore, the suggestion is that there should be an ID requirement. If people don't trust the outcome of an election, fraud or not, we're in trouble. Of course, maybe the solution is better comms/evidence that show actual voter fraud is pretty much non-existent, but given 21st century average behaviour, I'm not sure that's going to cut it...

Or the solution is a better implementation of the photo ID requirement.
I'd allow voters to not have photo ID for the upcoming local elections, with leaflet handed out as to why it will be necessary the time after, with clear instructions of how to get hold of one.
I can't recall if every household was sent such a letter - was it?

navyblueshorts wrote:Question for those that think this is some form of deliberate suppression: if one were setting up a democratic election system today, would one reasonably require some form of voter ID for those eligible to vote?

Irrelevant to current motive......

JuliusHMarx wrote:Or the solution is a better implementation of the photo ID requirement.
I'd allow voters to not have photo ID for the upcoming local elections, with leaflet handed out as to why it will be necessary the time after, with clear instructions of how to get hold of one.
I can't recall if every household was sent such a letter - was it?

I think having photo ID for local elections first is a good thing, because it allows a test run before the next General Election, meaning voters get brought up to speed and polling staff get acclimatised to the changes.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Question for those that think this is some form of deliberate suppression: if one were setting up a democratic election system today, would one reasonably require some form of voter ID for those eligible to vote?

Irrelevant to current motive......

Not at all and, to repeat, your conspiracy theories as to the reason it's being required now do not make them fact. Sorry about that, but I'm afraid that's the way it is .

JuliusHMarx wrote:Or the solution is a better implementation of the photo ID requirement.
I'd allow voters to not have photo ID for the upcoming local elections, with leaflet handed out as to why it will be necessary the time after, with clear instructions of how to get hold of one.
I can't recall if every household was sent such a letter - was it?

Not necessarily an unsound idea. If only the turnout for local elections was regularly near the 100% mark...

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Or the solution is a better implementation of the photo ID requirement.
I'd allow voters to not have photo ID for the upcoming local elections, with leaflet handed out as to why it will be necessary the time after, with clear instructions of how to get hold of one.
I can't recall if every household was sent such a letter - was it?

I think having photo ID for local elections first is a good thing, because it allows a test run before the next General Election, meaning voters get brought up to speed and polling staff get acclimatised to the changes.

I meant ask for in these ones, but don't enforce it.
Every household should definitely get a letter before it's enforced. Maybe I threw mine away.*

*Obviously I mean recycled, because I'm pinko liberal tree-hugging granola-crunching bleeding-heart communist.

I think they’re trying to fix a problem that doesnt exist. In hundreds of years of elections in the UK voted fraud has never been an issue. Ever. We’re talking a hundred investigions per millions votes cast (and thats being generous) and then barely a % lead to a conviction. We’re talking percentages of percentages. Its a complete overreaction.

Now, the party bringing this legislation are a governing party who arent just facing losing the next election, but total politcal wipeout (some polls a few months ago forecast less than 100 Tory seats). Couple this with the fact that certain ID’s are valid for the over 60’s (who are more likely to vote Conservative) but not the under 30’s (who are more likely to not) then its all a bit suspicious.

I’ve said it before, the best thing about our election system was that every single person in the country had the exact same access to a vote. Regardless of political affiliation, gender, race, sexuality, financial status, number of bedrooms in your house or whether you prefer cars or dogs. Your vote was worth exactly the same as the Prime Ministers.

Unless they introduce a free ID card scheme I cant see how this wont supress votes. Its not going to be a huge amount, but it will definitely stop some people from being able to vote, which is suppresion by definition.

They're obviously trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist and maximise their chances at the next election.

To anyone that thinks the Tories are introducing this purely to increase the integrity of the election, I've got some snake oil I'd like to sell you. They obviously wouldn't dream of introducing legislation such as this if it were contrary to their selfish interests.

But, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the wrong thing. Other countries do have voter ID laws and have no issues with it. However, the Tories introducing this when it so clearly benefits them and no other mainstream parties undermines confidence in their motive and, therefore, the entire policy.

I thought this thread was about Trump, seems it's gone a bit off the track.

Anyway, surely he won't/cannot be elected again. Aside from any legal issues he's having it would be a disaster for America and world. I mean come on, if anyone thought he didn't incite the Capitol hill thing among others then you are deluded. The absolute refusal to accept he had lost was an embarrassment.

Biden though was past it before he was elected, these days he is like the walking dead. Apparently he will run again but I'm not sure he's capable of running a bath. He looks and acts decrepid. Not his fault, we all get old but he's hardly fit for office?

Question is who are the Democrats to take his place? Is there anyone who can rival Trump or De Santis(assuming he runs).

I mean here in UK we've voted in some real winners at times but US considering the global impact the President has there surpasses us.

Regarding voter ID cards, I have no issue with them or in fact a national ID card which causes havoc when mentioned in media as everyone up in arms(not literally, this is a civilised country) about privacy etc.
I see why some are against them but me personally it would not be an issue.

mountain man wrote:I thought this thread was about Trump, seems it's gone a bit off the track.

Anyway, surely he won't/cannot be elected again. Aside from any legal issues he's having it would be a disaster for America and world. I mean come on, if anyone thought he didn't incite the Capitol hill thing among others then you are deluded. The absolute refusal to accept he had lost was an embarrassment.

Biden though was past it before he was elected, these days he is like the walking dead. Apparently he will run again but I'm not sure he's capable of running a bath. He looks and acts decrepid. Not his fault, we all get old but he's hardly fit for office?

Question is who are the Democrats to take his place? Is there anyone who can rival Trump or De Santis(assuming he runs).

I mean here in UK we've voted in some real winners at times but US considering the global impact the President has there surpasses us.

Regarding voter ID cards, I have no issue with them or in fact a national ID card which causes havoc when mentioned in media as everyone up in arms(not literally, this is a civilised country) about privacy etc.
I see why some are against them but me personally it would not be an issue.

Re. Trump 2024 - never underestimate the ability of humans to do something you'd think absurd.

Re. Biden 2024 - if I was American, I wouldn't give much of a stuff over his physical health as such (what is it, exactly, that you want from him? To run a marathon?). I'd rather he was a sensible, experienced, rational, non-narcissistic politician who's willing to at least talk to the other side.

But Biden doesn't look, act or respond as if he is mentally capable that's the big concern. He is frequently mumbling muddled words etc, looks confused.

mountain man wrote:But Biden doesn't look, act or respond as if he is mentally capable that's the big concern. He is frequently mumbling muddled words etc, looks confused.

Why it is folly to not want Trump as his opponent.....Because he will do all the talking in the debates and Biden can fall asleep and still win them...

Ipsos Mori..."Is the Country on the right track ??"

No 65%...!!!!!!!!......Worrying for sleepy Jo....


Trump is beatable although those that say he can't win......People said the same about Nixon in 68.....

Economy is way out as the number 1 issue.

And crime a close 2nd.

More and more ppl are seeing how progressive left wing policies lead to more crime.

Samo wrote:Now, the party bringing this legislation are a governing party who arent just facing losing the next election, but total politcal wipeout (some polls a few months ago forecast less than 100 Tory seats).

This isn't the case. It was the case once upon a time, I think if you look at polls at the start of the year and December, you'll see ones where the Tories were 20-30% behind and facing destruction as you describe.

But the gap has since narrowed, and Labour's lead is commonly thought to be around 12-15%, which isn't enough to destroy the Tories. The Tories at this stage are performing as well in the polling as Brown a year out from 2010.

navyblueshorts wrote:(what is it, exactly, that you want from him? To run a marathon?).

To have the mental capacity to do the job.

Biden just announced he's running with Harris again.
What a choice,Trump or Biden.

What's population of US, 200 million? And those are best two candidates.....

mountain man wrote:Biden just announced he's running with Harris again.
What a choice,Trump or Biden.

What's population of US, 200 million? And those are best two candidates.....

The Christmas we get, we deserve.

mountain man wrote:But Biden doesn't look, act or respond as if he is mentally capable that's the big concern. He is frequently mumbling muddled words etc, looks confused.

I wouldn't really care what he looks like in front of a camera. I'd rather he's actually capable of rational and significant thought (it appears he is) and can do stuff that's not all pomp and circumstance. TBH, I'm not up enough on the boring policy details of what he may, or may not, have enabled to be enacted, but him over Trump anytime. One thing's definite though and that's the need for the Democrats to have some credible candidates beyond Biden.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:(what is it, exactly, that you want from him? To run a marathon?).

To have the mental capacity to do the job.

Your evidence/examples that he doesn't are?

mountain man wrote:Biden just announced he's running with Harris again.
What a choice,Trump or Biden.

What's population of US, 200 million? And those are best two candidates.....

Unlikely (certainly in the case of the small-handed, orange one who's nothing but a sociopathic narcissist), but the way the system works, those appear to be the only options at the moment...

I was being sarcastic, but it beggers belief that the two parties will almost certainly vote for those two.

Biden if elected will be 80 and not a youthful 80. Yes better than Trump because frankly who isn't but just seems ridiculous there isn't any other viable candidate being put forward by Democrats. Michelle Obama? Maybe next time.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:(what is it, exactly, that you want from him? To run a marathon?).

To have the mental capacity to do the job.

Your evidence/examples that he doesn't are?

Not falling asleep when meeting foreign dignitaries would be a good idea to dissuade doubters.....Maybe not accusing the All black rugby team of atrocities in Ireland could be another good idea....

I know you seem to be in a churlish mood lately....but if you can't tell Biden suffers cognitively then there isn't much hope for you...

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:(what is it, exactly, that you want from him? To run a marathon?).

To have the mental capacity to do the job.

Your evidence/examples that he doesn't are?

How long have you got?! Confusing the All Blacks with the Black and Tans; calling Rishi Sunak 'Rashi Sanook' (and appearing to ignore him at a handshake); calling Trump 'George''; saying the USA has 54 states; claiming he spoke to the person who invented insulin (the person in question died before Biden was born); saying his son died when he was in Iraq (he didn't); confusing the war in Iraq with the one in Ukraine; muddling up the names of two of his grandchildren; and numerous times during campaign rallies getting the state which he was in confused with a different state.

Those are just off the top of my head. He's made dozens, possibly hundreds, more if you search for them.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:(what is it, exactly, that you want from him? To run a marathon?).

To have the mental capacity to do the job.

Your evidence/examples that he doesn't are?

Not falling asleep when meeting foreign dignitaries would be a good idea to dissuade doubters.....Maybe not accusing the All black rugby team of atrocities in Ireland could be another good idea....

I know you seem to be in a churlish mood lately....but if you can't tell Biden suffers cognitively then there isn't much hope for you...

You're not 'listening', are you? Plus ça change. Even if he did fall asleep sometime, I'm afraid that's not evidence of insufficient mental capacity to do what he has to do; it's arguably evidence he needed some well-earned(?) rest. Try harder .

If I was American, I'd want a President who appears to be able to get policy done, is willing to at least speak to the other side, didn't spend every waking hour enriching himself and/or insulting everyone else etc etc. I couldn't give a 4X if he/she had the gift of the gab on camera - that's an optional extra for me; nice if there, but better a decent President w/o that than, say, a Boris-****ing-Johnson who seems to be able to speak, but is a complete pillock. I don't really care if you say he fell asleep in some meeting - so he may, or may not have, fallen asleep at COP26 at some point. Big deal. Then again, I don't give much of a 4X for social media and the clickbait rubbish that passes all too often for significant reporting these days.

I can understand some Irish people getting a bit frustrated re. ABs cf. Black and Tans, but that's by the by. A mistake, but are you suggesting Biden, an avowed fan of the Irish, actually meant anything by that? Move on...

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:(what is it, exactly, that you want from him? To run a marathon?).

To have the mental capacity to do the job.

Your evidence/examples that he doesn't are?

How long have you got?! Confusing the All Blacks with the Black and Tans; calling Rishi Sunak 'Rashi Sanook' (and appearing to ignore him at a handshake); calling Trump 'George''; saying the USA has 54 states; claiming he spoke to the person who invented insulin (the person in question died before Biden was born); saying his son died when he was in Iraq (he didn't); confusing the war in Iraq with the one in Ukraine; muddling up the names of two of his grandchildren; and numerous times during campaign rallies getting the state which he was in confused with a different state.

Those are just off the top of my head. He's made dozens, possibly hundreds, more if you search for them.

Who cares about 'Rashi Sanook'? Assuming that's actually what he said.
No-one invented insulin.
Re. his son, could it possibly be (as he's alleged many times) that in his view he did die in Iraq due to his opinion his cancer was due to burn pit exposure?

Re. the rest, who cares? Well, I guess apparently US voters do to be fair. Let me say it again for the hard of hearing - I'd rather someone who occasionally stumbles over something in a speech, but otherwise does a decent job, than a snake oil salesman with all the patter, but no substance. He clearly has a problem convincing voters due to age, but I'm not sure it would bother me given the various evidence.

Democrat = good

GOP/Trump = bad

That's all you need to know with some posters.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:(what is it, exactly, that you want from him? To run a marathon?).

To have the mental capacity to do the job.

Your evidence/examples that he doesn't are?

How long have you got?! Confusing the All Blacks with the Black and Tans; calling Rishi Sunak 'Rashi Sanook' (and appearing to ignore him at a handshake); calling Trump 'George''; saying the USA has 54 states; claiming he spoke to the person who invented insulin (the person in question died before Biden was born); saying his son died when he was in Iraq (he didn't); confusing the war in Iraq with the one in Ukraine; muddling up the names of two of his grandchildren; and numerous times during campaign rallies getting the state which he was in confused with a different state.

Those are just off the top of my head. He's made dozens, possibly hundreds, more if you search for them.

Who cares about 'Rashi Sanook'? Assuming that's actually what he said.
No-one invented insulin.
Re. his son, could it possibly be (as he's alleged many times) that in his view he did die in Iraq due to his opinion his cancer was due to burn pit exposure?

Re. the rest, who cares? Well, I guess apparently US voters do to be fair. Let me say it again for the hard of hearing - I'd rather someone who occasionally stumbles over something in a speech, but otherwise does a decent job, than a snake oil salesman with all the patter, but no substance. He clearly has a problem convincing voters due to age, but I'm not sure it would bother me given the various evidence.

Who cares? Well you asked for evidence of a decline in mental capacity and there it is. I appreciate it doesn't fit with your view, but you can't brush off these things as occasionally stumbling over words in a speech.

'Rashi Sanook' - of course he said it. Link below. And he didn't stumble over it in the sense of 'Rashi Sanook, sorry, I mean Rishi Sunak', he legitimately thought the guy's name was Rashi Sanook. I don't think it would have been treated in the same way if Trump had said this.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2022/oct/25/rashi-sanook-joe-biden-rishi-sunak-name-video

Correct about insulin. But I guess Biden was just stumbling over his words, yeah?

"It was invented by a man who did not patent it because he wanted it available for everyone. I spoke to him, OK?"

However, insulin, a hormone produced in the body, was never invented, but was discovered by Sir Frederick Banting. The late physician and scientist died at the age of 49 on February 21, 1941. Biden was born on November 20, 1942.

https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/united-states/joe-biden-says-he-spoke-to-man-who-invented-insulin-despite-him-dying-before-the-us-president-was-born/news-story/b79b7959c83fbdb1f7ede30a7f76738b

With regards to his son, he specifically said Iraq was where his son had died.

"He said: “They talk about inflation… inflation is a worldwide problem right now because of a war in Iraq and the impact on oil and what Russia ’s doing… excuse me, the war in Ukraine."

President Biden claimed he became confused because that's where his son died: "I’m thinking about Iraq because that’s where my son died.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/president-joe-biden-mistakenly-says-28397553

You say Biden's done a decent job. What would you say are his main achievements in office? Trump had many good achievements, but I'm struggling to think of many for Biden.

Duty281 wrote:Trump had many good achievements.

Is it possible that some people would disagree with those achievements as being good?
Which ones would be universally(-ish) acclaimed as good achievements, that Trump is directly responsible for?
And why did he then get voted out of office?

the-goon2 wrote:Democrat = good

GOP/Trump = bad

That's all you need to know with some posters.

Nuanced.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Trump had many good achievements.

Is it possible that some people would disagree with those achievements as being good?
Which ones would be universally(-ish) acclaimed as good achievements, that Trump is directly responsible for?
And why did he then get voted out of office?  

He got voted out of office because of the Covid pandemic, in the second tightest Presidential election in the last 100 years of US history. In terms of main achievements:

Made drug prices transparent/health care providers had to disclose their prices publicly. Expanded oil production and lessened America's dependence on imports. Animal abusers faced tougher consequences.

Enhanced protections for religious freedom. Withdrew from TPP in an effort to preserve American manufacturing, and made promised reforms to NAFTA. NATO countries increased spending on defence due to Trump's involvement.

Wages rose and poverty fell to the lowest rate for about 15-20 years; poverty rates for black and Hispanic Americans actually fell to the lowest rate since data started at one point. Of course Covid may have altered this. Introduced paternal leave for federal workers. The First Step Act, which reformed the justice system and addressed inequalities that black Americans faced. Committed funds to build rural water infrastructure, and fix the problems in Flint, Michigan.

Appointed many LGBT people to prominent posts. I think the first openly-gay American to get a cabinet position happened under Trump, plus there were about half-a-dozen openly gay ambassadors appointed. Lots of tax cuts. ISIS were defeated, the leader was killed in 2019. Made huge steps forward for peace in the Middle East, also didn't start any new wars. Established Space Force as well.

He also signed into law many other good initiatives that were mainly the work of Congress, but that he supported.