Avoid making exclusive or discriminatory comments, instead try to create board posts that are open and welcoming to all.
- Manlobbi
Investment Strategies / Mechanical Investing
No. of Recommendations: 3
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 2
One of the NBC News shows had a neurologist talking about how difficult it is to diagnose Parkinson's. By the time it gets to where Biden is with such pronouced symptoms, it's a "slam dunk".
If the White House can't explain the 8 neurologist visits, I suspect he drops out within the week.
The neurologist said that the gold standard for ruling out any neurological disease is a 4-Hour battery of tests (not that childlike "Montreal test" that Trump took years ago.) Biden needs to take one of these 4-hr exams to show he's fit for office -- Trump, too.
We've probably been in 25th Amendment territory for months.
intercst
No. of Recommendations: 9
intercst:
... according to the White House visitor's log.
free linkWell, the number of people who fail to read their own links today is disappointing.
Here, let me help:
"An extremely detailed neurological exam was again reassuring in that there were no findings which would be consistent with any cerebellar or other central neurological disorder, such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's or ascending lateral sclerosis, nor are there any signs of cervical myelopathy."Evidently Peter Baker and Emily Baumgaertner also lack the most basic journalistic skills.
Maybe Biden needs Dr. Demoted-CandyMan Ronny Johnson-Jackson back -- yes, Trump repeatedly referred to Jackson as Johnson, and he was the guy who handed out opioids like candy in the Trump White House -- to tell them that Biden, like Trump, would live to be 200 with a better diet.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024...
No. of Recommendations: 5
{{ An extremely detailed neurological exam was again reassuring in that there were no findings which would be consistent with any cerebellar or other central neurological disorder, such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's or ascending lateral sclerosis, nor are there any signs of cervical myelopathy." }}
White House spin.
If that was true, you wouldn't need eight visits to the White House by a Parkinson's specialist.
intercst
No. of Recommendations: 2
If that was true, you wouldn't need eight visits to the White House by a Parkinson's specialist.
Here's the question that ChatNPC isn't considering:
How many people do you know that have 3 neuro exams in 3 years?
No. of Recommendations: 11
Maybe this needed 8 visits:
The New York Times
@nytimes. 3h
Breaking News: A Parkinson's expert visited the White House eight times in
eight months from last summer through this spring, according to official
visitor logs. The administration has said that President Biden has no signs
of the disease.
Parkinson's Expert Visited the White House Eight Times in Eight Months
From nytimes.com
Right Wing Cope
@RightWingCope
if you're going to lie, at least try harder Imao
On Tuesday, July 2, 2024, the President signed into
law:
H.R. 2365, the "Dr. Emmanuel Bilirakis and
Honorable Jennifer Wexton National Plan to End
Parkinson's Act," which requires the Department
of Health and Human Services to develop and
evaluate progress on a government-wide plan to
address Parkinson's and related diseases, and to
I found this:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house...Trending on imgur
No. of Recommendations: 2
Biden could remove all doubt by standing for a press conference not limited to pre-authorized questions.
The fact that this isn't being done speaks volumes.
intercst
No. of Recommendations: 2
The neurologist said that the gold standard for ruling out any neurological disease is a 4-Hour battery of tests (not that childlike "Montreal test" that Trump took years ago.) Biden needs to take one of these 4-hr exams to show he's fit for office -- Trump, too.
I agree. And the full results have to be released. But it's not gonna happen.
No. of Recommendations: 0
"An extremely detailed neurological exam was again reassuring in that there were no findings which would be consistent with any cerebellar or other central neurological disorder, such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's or ascending lateral sclerosis, nor are there any signs of cervical myelopathy."
True. But that was 5 months ago. But perhaps Parkinson's can't progress so quickly in 6 months.
No. of Recommendations: 6
intercst:
If that was true, you wouldn't need eight visits to the White House by a Parkinson's specialist.Jesus, you guys are pathetic.
Quoting from yesterday's letter from the Physician to the President, stating that the president was not examined by neurologists outside of his annual physical:
"Dr. Cannard was the neurological specialist that examined President Biden for each of his annual physicals. His findings have been made public each time I have released the results of the President's annual physical. President Biden has not seen a neurologist outside of his annual physical.This is Hillary 2, a relentless attack by independents against a candidate they are lukewarm to because he's not Bernie enough.
How'd that work out for ya' last time, hmmm?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024...
No. of Recommendations: 9
This is Hillary 2, a relentless attack by independents against a candidate they are lukewarm to because he's not Bernie enough.
How'd that work out for ya' last time, hmmm?
No one's attacking Biden because he's not Bernie enough.
People are trying to get Biden to step aside because they believe he lacks the basic capability to successfully run as a Presidential candidate. Running for President requires the candidate to be able to articulate to voters the reasons why they should vote for them. Regardless of their political philosophy, their message, their policies - the bare minimum for a Presidential candidate is to be able to do the job of communicating to voters why they should vote.
Biden appears that he is no longer capable of doing that, except during limited time periods and in very controlled settings. If he were winning, that wouldn't necessarily be as big of a problem. But he's losing - trailing in the national polls, trailing in every swing state poll, and running a dozen points behind where he was in 2020. And this is the easier part of the campaign schedule - it will get more exhausting, more draining, more hectic as we get into the fall.
Plus, two weeks after the debate he's still not doing any of the sorts of things that could demonstrate that the debate was a one-off: unscripted press conferences, live interviews, town halls. He's having private meetings with elected officials - and while he's doing a passable job in persuading some of them to stick with him, you're not seeing them come out and go on record that he's still as "sharp as a tack" or similar stuff. Which is a big warning sign. We're in a "show me" crisis, and Biden isn't showing anything.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Dr. Cannard was the neurological specialist that examined President Biden for each of his annual physicals. His findings have been made public each time I have released the results of the President's annual physical. President Biden has not seen a neurologist outside of his annual physical.
----------------
And the hostility shown by KJP to anyone asking for an explanation for the real reason for those eight visits makes normies question Dr. Cannard's assurance.
No. of Recommendations: 2
albaby: People are trying to get Biden to step aside...
Nope. This (Parkinson's conspiracy theory) is just plain old conspiracy mongering. Your supporting it is disappointing.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Nope. This (Parkinson's conspiracy theory) is just plain old conspiracy mongering. - CO
------------------
Ok then, just provide the reason why that specialist visited the white house eight times. Simple.
No. of Recommendations: 5
But, as you pointed out months ago, it's probably too late for a new candidate to 'rev-up'. Harris could at least take over the reigns, but it's still a bad look (and very late in the game, regardless).
Trump's base will never change. Also, Biden's base (does he have one?) would never change. But elections are decided by the swing/moderate/independent voters. It's hard for me to imagine a world where they could look at the two candidates and conclude "convict Trump is less dangerous, less deranged, less addled than Biden". However bad Biden is, convict Trump is indisputably worse. Existentially (for the nation) worse.
No. of Recommendations: 1
This (Parkinson's conspiracy theory) is just plain old conspiracy mongering. Your supporting it is disappointing.
Oh, I didn't pay attention to the thread title. Also, I don't think it's "independents" using the Parkinson's doc visits to attack Biden for not being Bernie enough - it's mostly right-wing conspiracy guys.
But no, I don't think Biden has Parkinson's. I think he just has age-related loss of mental acuity.
No. of Recommendations: 4
But, as you pointed out months ago, it's probably too late for a new candidate to 'rev-up'. Harris could at least take over the reigns, but it's still a bad look (and very late in the game, regardless).
Yep. To borrow Matt Yglesias' framing of it, the fundamental question is whether Biden is above or below the "Kamala Line" - the point where the Democrats would be better off switching to Harris, because there are enormous and unavoidable downsides to making that switch. Because those downsides are so huge, Biden has to be in really dire straits for that to be the smart choice.
In 2023, Biden was above the Kamala line. Now, he's not. The campaign's strategy of controlling public perception of Biden to make it seem like he was more capable than he really is might have worked, but the debate destroyed the viability of that approach. Everyone's seen behind the curtain, and there will be virtually no more Democrats willing to go out and tell voters that Biden's 100% there any more.
It's hard for me to imagine a world where they could look at the two candidates and conclude "convict Trump is less dangerous, less deranged, less addled than Biden".
Why is that hard for you to imagine? Trump is winning!!!! The electorate is not categorically rejecting Trump, no matter how much we might wish they would. He's leading all the national polls. He's leading every swing state poll. He was leading before the debate, and now he's leading by even more. The voters are concluding that Trump is less dangerous, less deranged, and less addled than Biden.
If Biden was still operating at 2020 levels of competency as a candidate, it would be difficult for him to reverse that; how on earth is he going to be able to change that now? He can't do the basic tasks of campaigning in July; it's going to be worse in October. Sure, Democrats can run ads. They make great ads. But they've been running ads against Trump for a while, and it hasn't changed the dynamic of the race; and now Trump has the money and some amazingly powerful ad fodder to run against Biden.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The campaign's strategy of controlling public perception of Biden to make it seem like he was more capable than he really is might have worked, but the debate destroyed the viability of that approach.
Again...didn't see the debate. But going off of what others are saying, how could that possibly have worked? Sure...FDR was able to hide the fact that he was struck-down by polio. Because the media cooperated. That's not going to happen today. IMO, there was virtually no chance of hiding any liability Biden may or may not have had. IMO, it was stupid to even try (if that's what they, in fact, did).
Why is that hard for you to imagine? Trump is winning!!!!
I realize that. I still can't wrap my head around that. We already know what convict Trump is. We also know what Biden is. Neither are perfect, but only one is an existential threat to this nation. The base of convict Trump will never see that, but the independents should (IMO) see the red flags.
The voters are concluding that Trump is less dangerous, less deranged, and less addled than Biden.
Yeah, that's the part I don't get. He objectively is far worse. And that's not even considering any policies, that's just looking at the two men.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Plus, two weeks after the debate he's still not doing any of the sorts of things that could demonstrate that the debate was a one-off: unscripted press conferences, live interviews, town halls. He's having private meetings with elected officials - and while he's doing a passable job in persuading some of them to stick with him, you're not seeing them come out and go on record that he's still as "sharp as a tack" or similar stuff. Which is a big warning sign. We're in a "show me" crisis, and Biden isn't showing anything.
And to a lot of people that is the "tell". Parkinson's probably isn't in the offing, but we need to see a "win" by Joe. He is a good decent and politically skilled man who can do the job, but he has to come out fighting, and it isn't there so far. I will vote for a dead cow on the Dem side over Trump but the next few weeks is do or die.
No. of Recommendations: 6
I realize that. I still can't wrap my head around that. We already know what convict Trump is. We also know what Biden is. Neither are perfect, but only one is an existential threat to this nation. The base of convict Trump will never see that, but the independents should (IMO) see the red flags.
No, independents don't and won't see any red flags. Trump was already President once, and while there were plenty of things that happened during his Presidency (both good and bad), the country survived and continued to thrive. For most people (who don't pay too much attention to politics), that's a huge counterpoint to Democratic assertions that Trump is an existential threat.
Had Trump been found to have played a more direct role in the riot of January 6, rather than having only given the speech and not doing much to stopping it, it might have been a different story. Instead, though, the story of the first Trump Administration is one that ended up being one where some conservative/populist policies got implemented, most did not (no repeal of Obamacare, no ravaging of the social safety net, no drastic changes to most laws), and you had the expected appointment of lots of conservative judges.
Against that, Democratic fulminations about an existential threat are simply not landing. And they're not going to land any better in the next four months than they have the last four months. The voters already have a really strong sense of who Donald Trump is, and believe they have a good sense of what his Presidency would be like (since they already went through one term), and have mostly made up their minds about it. Democrats are very unhappy with the conclusions that the voters have drawn about Trump, but he's perhaps the most well-defined and completely-vetted Presidential challenger in modern election history. So there's not a whole lot that can be done about it.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Ok then, just provide the reason why that specialist visited the white house eight times. Simple.
You were given a reason up thread, even simpler. ;P
No. of Recommendations: 4
No, independents don't and won't see any red flags. Trump was already President once, and while there were plenty of things that happened during his Presidency (both good and bad), the country survived and continued to thrive. For most people (who don't pay too much attention to politics), that's a huge counterpoint to Democratic assertions that Trump is an existential threat.
This. 100%.
In my dark moments, I wish January 6, 2021 would have been a lot bloodier and more decisive. I wish they had actually hanged Mike Pence, or held hostage all the "brave" Republicans like Josh Hawley. Or alternatively, security had shot dead 400 of the rampaging mob instead of that one idiot, Ashley Babbit. Like 9/11. Nobody who criticized Trump who absolutely clearly caused it, would be able to flip later, like Lindsey Graham.
Instead I see Democrats overprosecuting payment to a porn star (actually, cheating on his campaign paperwork) as 34 felonies instead of one misdemeanor and I agree Trump got railroaded in that lawsuit.
What existential threat? Fani Willis is so concerned about saving democracy, she could hardly contain it. She had to share it with her lover/ consultant and jeopardize the case. Amateurs.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Nope. This (Parkinson's conspiracy theory) is just plain old conspiracy mongering. Your supporting it is disappointing.
What conspiracy theory? The guy was literally there 8 times.
The "this doctor was there to see military people" is such an obvious piece of BS spin...military people in the DC region don't go to the White House for examinations, they go to Water Reed (where this guy works).
No. of Recommendations: 4
Against that, Democratic fulminations about an existential threat are simply not landing. And they're not going to land any better in the next four months than they have the last four months. The voters already have a really strong sense of who Donald Trump is, and believe they have a good sense of what his Presidency would be like (since they already went through one term), and have mostly made up their minds about it. Democrats are very unhappy with the conclusions that the voters have drawn about Trump, but he's perhaps the most well-defined and completely-vetted Presidential challenger in modern election history. So there's not a whole lot that can be done about it.
Yes. I realized early that we only get a stab at some of the independents and that's it. Only a tiny few are going to be swayed away from Trump and I'm listening to Rick Wilson right now on how he thinks political messaging can make a difference and what Dems do wrong. Albaby, Goofy, and others slowly convinced me we aren't going to win the Presidency unless we are extremely fortunate. Unfortunately, Biden needs to step down and throw to Kamala. Kamala makes sense as there isn't any candidate who can win, so we might as well sacrifice someone who is legit, and won't ruin a good viable candidate for 2028.
This sucks but it's what we have.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Unfortunately, Biden needs to step down and throw to Kamala.
Nothing unfortunate about it except Biden's desperate clinging to power coming to an end.
Re the war chest. What is to prevent Biden/Harris from (quickly) returning the money to donors so they can give it to the next Dem candidate? My vague understanding is that they can't give it themselves.
A Shapiro/Whitmer ticket would be competitive against a Trump/blandrichwhiteguy ticket (I assume. But it's Trump so who knows.) ABBH (anyone but Biden/Harris).
No. of Recommendations: 2
This is Hillary 2, a relentless attack by independents against a candidate they are lukewarm to because he's not Bernie enough.
No, I don't think that's right. Biden is clearly going downhill. It's not about his problem with stuttering, he is just confused and incoherent. He doesn't sound old, he sounds senile.
As I've said before, I will vote for him if he's on the ballot.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Re the war chest. What is to prevent Biden/Harris from (quickly) returning the money to donors so they can give it to the next Dem candidate? My vague understanding is that they can't give it themselves.
It’s in the name of Biden/Harris, so if Kamala is on the ticket it’s easy. All Biden has to do is let go. I could get behind a Kamala/Buttegeig ticket; it might not be my first choice, but at least I would feel somewhat enthusiastic about it. And he is articulate and smart. She was a prosecutor, so I presume she would be able to “prosecute” the ticket’s point of view.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Lambo:
Kamala makes sense as there isn't any candidate who can win, so we might as well sacrifice someone who is legit, and won't ruin a good viable candidate for 2028.JFC what is wrong with you people.
A new poll released today has vice resident Harris down by one point, trailing Trump 42 percent to 43 percent. Clinton, who is not even under serious consideration, was matched on a Clinton-Harris ticket which polled ahead of Trump 43 percent to 40 percent.
Another non-candidate, Michelle Obama, leads Trump 50% to 39% in a Reuters/Ipsos poll.
A Trump victory is not a given. Much of the country hate him with the fire of a thousand suns.
Stop being so defeatist. It's early July, not late October.
And to get Biden out of the race, write letters or call the real Biden influencers like senator Jim Clyburn. Otherwise all you're doing is making Biden dig in his heels more firmly. He doesn't believe the polls and, like most presidents, hates the media.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000190-94cd-d9a9-...
No. of Recommendations: 3
CO: "A Trump victory is not a given. Much of the country hate him with the fire of a thousand suns. Stop being so defeatist. It's early July, not late October."
Amen! A recent (post debate) poll shows Biden down by one point, trailing Trump 42% to 43%.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000190-94cd-d9a9-...
No. of Recommendations: 1
The campaign's strategy of controlling public perception of Biden to make it seem like he was more capable than he really is…
The implied assumption here is that Biden is less capable than he has seemed over the last few months.
With a person who has a known speech impediment, it’s very hard to say that problems speaking are a new issue, and not just a reversion to former speech patterns before the impediment was reduced via therapy.
Why is everyone so sure this is evidence of cognitive problems? Isn’t it just as possible that as he is aging, he’s losing a bit of the control he has had over that speech impediment, and that his cognition is not significantly impaired?
—Peter
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why is everyone so sure this is evidence of cognitive problems? Isn’t it just as possible that as he is aging, he’s losing a bit of the control he has had over that speech impediment, and that his cognition is not significantly impaired?
Fair enough. So why is he refusing to take a cognitive test?
Man, woman, person, TV, camera. Simple. Just make sure it's administered by Ronnie Jackson.
No. of Recommendations: 3
It’s in the name of Biden/Harris, so if Kamala is on the ticket it’s easy. All Biden has to do is let go. I could get behind a Kamala/Buttegeig ticket; it might not be my first choice, but at least I would feel somewhat enthusiastic about it. And he is articulate and smart. She was a prosecutor, so I presume she would be able to “prosecute” the ticket’s point of view.
And they could use the hard-hitting line "Who would you rather vote for, the Prosecutor, or Felon?"
No. of Recommendations: 1
A new poll released today has vice resident Harris down by one point, trailing Trump 42 percent to 43 percent. Clinton, who is not even under serious consideration, was matched on a Clinton-Harris ticket which polled ahead of Trump 43 percent to 40 percent.
And Emerson has Trump Biden 50-50, but Biden has to do some things to counter the powerful message - and he's not doing them. Biden needs to shore up the image and every day that goes by underscores the possibility he may not be able to. I think speaking frankly isn't defeatist at all. If Biden starts shoring up his image all of the sniping will go away though. Harris makes sense if he doesn't.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Why is everyone so sure this is evidence of cognitive problems? Isn’t it just as possible that as he is aging, he’s losing a bit of the control he has had over that speech impediment, and that his cognition is not significantly impaired?
Mostly because that's not what everyone saw at the debate. That wasn't a speech impediment resurfacing. He was clearly having trouble with his thoughts. Plus, had it been consistent with nothing more than Biden's previously diagnosed and long-present speech impediment coming back, then that would have been pointed out - ad nauseum - by the White House over and over again, with experts lining up to say that.
Plus, I'm not sure it would matter if that's the reason Biden has lost the ability to consistently speak effectively without a teleprompter. Oh, sure - much better than being partially senile, of course. But it's still really bad. Running for President is a different job than being President. You could (probably) continue to do the job of being the President even if you were struck mute after being elected. But being a Presidential candidate requires being able to communicate with voters using the spoken word - it's sort of a BFOQ of that job. You have to be able to talk to people - general public speaking, debates, town halls, conversations with donors, interviews with reporters, meetings with surrogates, etc. If Biden can't do that going forward, then it's really hard to see a path forward for him to beat Trump.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Why is everyone so sure this is evidence of cognitive problems? Isn’t it just as possible that as he is aging, he’s losing a bit of the control he has had over that speech impediment, and that his cognition is not significantly impaired?
—Peter
------------------
Well, speaking as a Fox viewer, we have seen the video's of Joe's deterioration regularly, in all its forms, in various venues for the past year or two.
So this comes as no surprise at all. I can understand the libs having the vapors over this realization because his condition was hidden from them until recently.
No. of Recommendations: 1
“ If Biden can't do that going forward, then it's really hard to see a path forward for him to beat Trump.“ Congrats Albaby, you, are a gentleman and a scholar, clearly not one of the, usual suspects. The Dem party elders are going to have to play hard ball with Hunter and Jill and force him to retire for health reasons. A ticket with Wes Moore and a white female governor would instantly become even money vs trump. ☮️
No. of Recommendations: 3
So this comes as no surprise at all. I can understand the libs having the vapors over this realization because his condition was hidden from them until recently.
Yup. If your only news sources are of low quality - such as CNN and other outlets that rushed out to repeat the White House spin of "cheap fakes" - then you were caught off guard and are just now catching up to what the rest of us have known for years. You can see it coming as a shock to some on this board.
I haven't seen anyone apologize for being so consistently wrong and for all the aggressive nastiness, have you?
No. of Recommendations: 8
"Well, speaking as a Fox viewer, we have seen the video's of Joe's deterioration regularly, in all its forms, in various venues for the past year or two."
Fox is well known for it's selective and misleading video editing to portray Democrats as negatively as they can.
Fox does the opposite for Trump.
Very 'Goebbelish' of them, but that's what Fox is, and Fox knows it's viewers swallow it hook, line and sinker.
