Could be. Might just be a stutter. Good read: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/joe-biden-stutter-profile/602401/
Biden has had a stuttering problem all his life, he has worked hard to be able to speak clearly. It's not a sign of mental deficiency.
Not necessarily. I was only comparing Biden to Sanders, whom I believe had a heart attack late last year.
I know you aren't. I am. I'm saying that even if he's declining mentally, he still seems sharper than our current President--so even if you're right (and it's unlikely you are, since you're neither a doctor nor someone who's in close contact with Biden), it seems like it would still be an upgrade in Presidential mental acuity.
Look, you keep bringing Trump into the conversation. Please stop. LOL Again, my comments were IF Biden gets elected (and we all know there's a chance he may), then he'd be wise to have a very solid VP in place because (in my example) he may not even make it through a first term. Simple as that.
Why? If we're talking about something that might make Biden unfit, or less fit, to be President, why wouldn't a comparison with the current President be relevant? I'll bring up Trump whenever he's germane to my point. I don't think it's likely that Biden has a medical issue that makes him either unfit for the Presidency or unlikely to complete his term, but I think even with the lapses in focus/concentration he's shown, he still displays more mental acuity than the current President so we wouldn't be in worse shape at the very least. If this is a point you don't want to engage with, you don't have to keep responding to me, you know. Okay. I mean, it's always good to have a very solid VP in place. There has never been a President where I thought they should try to put in place an awful Vice President.
The relevant point is, this is a Bernie vs. Biden thread. I/me/yours truly have already been encouraged/exhorted to keep my conversations relevant to the respective threads I'm involved in...and to not veer off into Trumpland debates....as so often seems to happen. I was simply trying to make it clear to you - and everyone else - that my comments in this thread solely involve Biden and, in some regards, Sanders.
Isn't it about time to change the title to Biden vs. Biden? This thing is pretty much Joe's to lose at this point, and if he does lose, it will likely be because of his continual gaffes.
True enough. Socialistically speaking, poor Bernie. Stiffed twice (well, at least this time) by the DNC.
OK, well, maybe not the DNC in-and-of-itself, but I think you get the drift. I agree with some of these sentiments from early March: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...-establishment-bid-turn-back-sanders-n1147416 WASHINGTON — The Democratic empire is quickly aligning its forces to strike back at Bernie Sanders...... ....."It reflects the urgency of what we’re going into on Super Tuesday," said Adrienne Elrod, a Democratic strategist who worked on Hillary Clinton's bids for the presidency. "That's a big show of force that the left-of-center wing of the Democratic Party is consolidating around Joe because they understand what’s at stake, they understand the urgency, and they don’t want this to be handed to Bernie Sanders on Super Tuesday."..... ...."The corporate establishment is coming together, the political establishment is coming together, and they will do everything," Sanders told reporters in Salt Lake City on Monday. "They are really getting nervous that working people are standing up.".... ........Before Biden's resurgence in South Carolina, party leaders had long worried that fractured support among Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Warren and billionaire Mike Bloomberg would magnify Sanders' edge on Super Tuesday and put him on a path to winning the nomination outright or making a strong case that he should win with a plurality..... Call it a conspiracy of you'd like, and I very well could be wrong, but I think the Democratic powers-that-be somehow had their thumbs on the scales as it concerned the simultaneous departures of Klobuchar and Buttigieg...and ensuing (and swift) backing of Biden. I all seemed just a little weird to me. Ahh...well. But the departures of Klobuchar and Buttigieg — even after early voting in many states clearly has banked many votes for the two of them — mean Sanders' chances of emerging Tuesday with an eye-popping delegate count are probably reduced. To me (and many, many others), the obvious reason is that the DNC doesn't think Bernie, while becoming increasing popular among the ranks, can beat Trump. In 2016...nor in 2020. (Sorry about the Trump reference. I stand corrected.)
I don't think the Democratic party asking Buttigieg/Klobuchar to exit the race constitutes corruption or "stiffing" Sanders. They have a right to ask anyone they want to exit the race for the good of the party. Both the Democrats and Republicans do that pretty much every election cycle (when they don't have an incumbent). I'd view it as "stiffing" Sanders if they changed the rules mid-primary to disadvantage him or if they were discovered to be changing vote totals or something like that.
You're certainly entitled to that opinion. No problem. One dictionary defines stiffed as "being snubbed", so I'll go with that one. At any rate, the fix is on.
