[andi*pandi]

4 months from the election, to sum up:

Democratic incumbent Biden being asked to step aside by other prominent democrats, citing "old". First debate came off as tired. Campaign says he was sick. Of course when he performs well at debates/interviews, the other side claims he was on drugs. Speaking of drugs...

Republican former president Trump nearly as old as incumbent, most definitely crazy, convicted of multiple crimes, but media chatter is that being shot at campaign event will lift him in the polls.

Cue conspiracy theories about the shooting:

[andi*pandi]

"Donald Trump selected Senator JD Vance of Ohio as his 2024 running mate, elevating a hard-edged loyalist who will amplify the polarizing MAGA populism of the Republican ticket."

[subego]

Me: literally who?

[andi*pandi]

Apparently someone who recently wrote a book bashing Trump, but had an about face and now is a Trump hard-liner. Antiabortion.

But the math maths, trump has two men on the ticket, for all those scared of a Kamala presidency they can be reassured that Vance will man up if his old guy kicks it.

[Thorzdad]

Vox backgrounder on Vance.

[subego]

I’m sure it’s totally neutral.

[subego]

Oh… Hillbilly Elegy guy.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I’m sure it’s totally neutral.

Why don’t you read it first before judging rather than dismissing the piece outright.

Like you wrote, JD Vance wrote Hillbilly Elegy and his stated political positions have moved with time from a more centrist position to being Trump’s running mate.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

4 months from the election, to sum up:

Democratic incumbent Biden being asked to step aside by other prominent democrats, citing "old". First debate came off as tired. Campaign says he was sick. Of course when he performs well at debates/interviews, the other side claims he was on drugs. Speaking of drugs...

Republican former president Trump nearly as old as incumbent, most definitely crazy, convicted of multiple crimes, but media chatter is that being shot at campaign event will lift him in the polls.

Cue conspiracy theories about the shooting:

I really don't like conspiracy theories but since Trump and his allies have already conspired to corrupt SCOTUS, there is clearly a conspiracy in play here.
The shooting definitely feels odd. Trump is a coward but didn't act like one. And he hasn't attacked the Secret Service for their failings either.


Trump was and hopefully still is taking serious damage over Project 2025 which apparently exceeded searches for Taylor Swift recently. There is also a talk that Doe #174 in the Epstein files being Trump was about to start gathering steam as well.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The shooting definitely feels odd. Trump is a coward but didn't act like one. And he hasn't attacked the Secret Service for their failings either.

Trump showed excellent instincts to use the assassination attempt for his purposes. The photo with his bloodied face and raised fist is iconic.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Why don’t you read it first before judging rather than dismissing the piece outright.

If a government worker gives the media the government-approved media line, subego thinks that's a very important point to consider thoughtfully. If the media talks about a Republican political figure, subego is very careful about potential bias in the information.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I really don't like conspiracy theories...

I don't want to either but there's oddly not a lot of facts. Rumors say it was flying glass that hit Trump's ear, not a bullet. How were more people behind trump not injured? Where was the firefighter that got shot? I saw video of the injured people, which seemed like the shots were coming from below the bleachers behind them not a roof.

yadda yadda ai yadda yadda who knows.

show me a map of the scene with all the info.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-ral...t-newtab-en-us

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Why don’t you read it first before judging rather than dismissing the piece outright.

The countless other sources less afflicted with epistemological bankruptcy.

[subego]

I did that.

[andi*pandi]

I can't believe the dems forced Biden to step down, but at least they seem to be rallying around Kamala and not descending into infighting.

So far.

[Laminar]

Does a young black woman that has spent years being demonized by the right face a better chance against Trump than an old white woman that had also spent years being demonized by the right? The dems should nominate Haley as president and keep Kamala as VP. All-woman ticket with an extremely conservative-friendly president. You get your conservative leadership without the Trump crazy.

[subego]

I’d take that bait.

The problem is the disloyalty it would entail. That’s some strong poison.

[andi*pandi]

Haley? She's not remotely a dem.

I am hearing chitchat of a Harris-Whitman ticket. I think some part of the population would have heart attacks at the thought of two women on the ticket. A safer option would be some midwest white guy.

[reader50]

Harris is very much a progressive. That works for me, but will be tough for conservatives. Even Reagan Republicans who desperately want to vote against Trump.

My thought is to balance the ticket. Try to talk Senator Joe Manchin (West Virginia) into VP. He's the most conservative Dem Senator, and managed to water down a number of progressive laws. He should have good name recognition for conservatives across the country.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I can't believe the dems forced Biden to step down, but at least they seem to be rallying around Kamala and not descending into infighting.

So far.

I didn't watch the debate, but it now looks like Biden has been facing cognitive decline for months, with the administration hiding it. Even from senior Dem leaders.

The good news? Trump seems to be in cognitive decline too. Some of his speeches have gone off the rails when he stopped using the Teleprompter. And it's post-RNC convention, so Reps are stuck with Trump. There's a good chance he'll decline further before the election.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I can't believe the dems forced Biden to step down, but at least they seem to be rallying around Kamala and not descending into infighting.

I don't know. I'm more hopeful now.
Now the tables have turned and Trump is officially the oldest nominee for President. If you listen to his responses, a lot of them were (still) non-sense and he has a lot of weaknesses.

Her choice for VP will be interesting. Gov. Beshear (Kentucky) or Gov. Shapiro would be obvious choices. I have friends in Kentucky, both are huge fans of Beshear (one of them is a liberal, the other one a conservative). Not sure if the Democrats would “risk” a ticket with two women, Gretchen Wittmer seems eminently qualified. Someone who is more liberal on some issues (e. g. sensible firearms regulations) would be Mark Kelly. The Democrats have an embarrassment of riches of talent.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I didn't watch the debate, but it now looks like Biden has been facing cognitive decline for months, with the administration hiding it. Even from senior Dem leaders.

Who's hiding anything? The right has been screaming about Biden's incoherent dementia ramblings for 4 years now.

The good news? Trump seems to be in cognitive decline too. Some of his speeches have gone off the rails when he stopped using the Teleprompter. And it's post-RNC convention, so Reps are stuck with Trump. There's a good chance he'll decline further before the election.

If the democrats can ignore Biden's decline, you bet your aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaass Republicans don't give a shit about Trump's.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Who's hiding anything? The right has been screaming about Biden's incoherent dementia ramblings for 4 years now.

I got the impression many on the left considered these baseless rants, or at the least wildly blown out of proportion.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Who's hiding anything? The right has been screaming about Biden's incoherent dementia ramblings for 4 years now.

Originally Posted by subego 

I got the impression many on the left considered these baseless rants, or at the least wildly blown out of proportion.

The right screams about a lot. Usually about things that aren't happening. Some of them eventually happen later. Stopped clocks etc, etc.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

If the democrats can ignore Biden's decline, you bet your aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaass Republicans don't give a shit about Trump's.

Well they don't care that he's an insurrectionist, that he's disqualified from running as an insurrectionist, a criminal, a liar, a rapist or a pedophile. They never cared that he's never been fit for the job in terms of intellect, sense, instinct, diplomacy, taste, class, manners, decorum, temperament or morality, why would they care if he was clinically mad as well?

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

If the democrats can ignore Biden's decline, you bet your aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaass Republicans don't give a shit about Trump's.

Most Rs are going to vote for Trump, unless he gets so embarrassingly gone, that they don't vote for anyone. Some Reagan Republicans will vote against Trump for the sake of a free country. They'll find it easier to vote for the Dem candidate if the VP has conservative credentials.

But this isn't about Republicans. It's about winning the independent votes. As most Dems will vote for Harris, the independents will decide who wins. Rambling old-age speeches from Trump will be seen for what they are. Last I heard, Trump's already gone off the teleprompter to talk about sharks ... and fishing.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I got the impression many on the left considered these baseless rants, or at the least wildly blown out of proportion.

That's because of the nature of the claims made by many on the right: I think many of the claims were gross exaggerations. And they are at odds with the track record of the Biden Administration as a whole. IMHO one major reason for that is that Biden has surrounded himself with very competent people, but that's not all.

Separately, I think the other factor is that things can and have changed with time. Biden is not the only example, look at e. g. Mitch McConnell. He was also sharp as a tack and a shrewd political operator. Until he wasn't. The pattern is consistent with my own experiences amongst my aging relatives. Something like a health scare can induce decline all of a sudden.

Now the tables have turned completely and Trump is officially the oldest candidate to ever compete. (Biden hadn't been officially confirmed.) He's now the old guy and in my mind, 78 and 81 are functionally identical. If you listen to some of Trump's answers during the debate or his appearances, you'll see they are non-sensical word soup. His performance at the debate was just less bad than Biden's who had a lot of opportunities to hit back, but couldn't make a goal in a penalty kick without a goalie.

The last thing that I think is worth mentioning is that the Republicans should take note what the Democrats did just now and try to do better next time. They have missed crucial opportunities to get rid of Trump. E. g. right after January 6 was a window where they could have made him ineligible to run again, and their candidate would likely now be Nicky Haley or Ron De Santis. Nicky Haley would have wiped the floor with Biden. (I think Ron De Santis has shown that he is less capable as a candidate than Haley independently of the political opinion he holds.)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Most Rs are going to vote for Trump, unless he gets so embarrassingly gone, that they don't vote for anyone. Some Reagan Republicans will vote against Trump for the sake of a free country. They'll find it easier to vote for the Dem candidate if the VP has conservative credentials.

My money is on Gov. Beshear or Gov. Shapiro who have a track record of good management in a state where they have to deal with Republicans as well.

Originally Posted by reader50 

But this isn't about Republicans. It's about winning the independent votes. As most Dems will vote for Harris, the independents will decide who wins. Rambling old-age speeches from Trump will be seen for what they are. Last I heard, Trump's already gone off the teleprompter to talk about sharks ... and fishing.

I think Trump was all set on Joe Biden and the Democrats have thrown out their playbook. Many of the talking points will no longer work. Age is off the table. And Harris has had some very good debate performances. At the very least, Trump needs to bring his A game if he wants to play.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Most Rs are going to vote for Trump, unless he gets so embarrassingly gone, that they don't vote for anyone.

Trump has been "embarrassingly gone" since before the 2016 election. It didn't bother them then.

[Thorzdad]

I just want Harris to begin subtly referring to Trump as Don-OLD.

[subego]

“Donald Trump is so old he may be forced to drop out of the race and throw his entire party into disarray. Wouldn’t that be embarrassing.”

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

And they are at odds with the track record of the Biden Administration as a whole. IMHO one major reason for that is that Biden has surrounded himself with very competent people, but that's not all.

Yes, this is a common justification left-leaning people used to justify voting for someone with clearly declining faculties. “I’m voting for an administration” is a word-for-word quote I’ve seen plenty of.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Yes, this is a common justification left-leaning people used to justify voting for someone with clearly declining faculties. “I’m voting for an administration” is a word-for-word quote I’ve seen plenty of.

It's a common conception in democratic nations that the figurehead is not the one doing all the ruling, just calling the shots when the governing parties and governing bodies are at odds over how things should be done. Winner-takes-all single-party dictatorship headed by an almighty ruler is a very 18th-century view of government.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I can't believe the dems forced Biden to step down, but at least they seem to be rallying around Kamala and not descending into infighting.

So far.

That is very encouraging. Kamala has energized the base to the point where she's raised $100M in 24 hours. But it will be all for naught of the Dems start a circular firing squad of intra-party squabbling. Fortunately it appears that won't be the case.

OAW

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Winner-takes-all single-party dictatorship headed by an almighty ruler is a very 18th-century view of government.

And it's exactly what 30-50% of Americans have voted for in the past two elections.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

And it's exactly what 30-50% of Americans have voted for in the past two elections.

Yes, but a basic understanding of democracy is not "a common justification left-leaning people used to justify voting for someone with clearly declining faculties".

I would not want the Democrats' conservative neoliberal administration to rule over me. Were I eligible in the United States, I'd still vote for them in a heartbeat — not because I'd be voting for their administration, but because the only alternative is outright fascism.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by subego 

I got the impression many on the left considered these baseless rants, or at the least wildly blown out of proportion.

It was a vast smear campaign that Biden was in his basement or a complete drooling vegetable. It was disproven every time Biden strung two sentences together. Any fumble at all was seen as cognitive decline while the other side got a free pass. Biden gets dinged for using a teleprompter - which every politician uses for formal speeches. Johnson used one at the RNC and had to abandon his speech when it shut down. Complete hypocrisy and spin.

FWIW, I don't think Biden's lost his marbles. But to paraphrase doctor who, "he looks tired. don't you think he looks tired?". I hope he finishes his term with a bang and walks out on stage with Kamala head held high.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

My money is on Gov. Beshear or Gov. Shapiro who have a track record of good management in a state where they have to deal with Republicans as well.

I think Trump was all set on Joe Biden and the Democrats have thrown out their playbook. Many of the talking points will no longer work. Age is off the table. And Harris has had some very good debate performances. At the very least, Trump needs to bring his A game if he wants to play.

trump is on truth social whining that the democrats owe him money because he spent so much preparing to fight Joe. What-ever.

Beshear or Kelly sound good as military guys who appeal across parties. Manchin might appeal to conservatives, but all dems hate him with 1000 suns. Fencesitter who let Rs get away with crap.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Yes, this is a common justification left-leaning people used to justify voting for someone with clearly declining faculties. “I’m voting for an administration” is a word-for-word quote I’ve seen plenty of.

Except that isn't my argument: I was referring to exaggerated claims that started before Biden's election, which accused him of “Being senile” while simultaneously being so capable that “our freedoms are on the line.” Claims like these started as a political smear campaign as wild exaggerations, which made it more difficult to discuss seriously. Those exaggerated claims set the bar so low that Biden passed it by doing the bare minimum. Worse, they set the bar in the wrong place.

At the same time, Trump's age was not an issue even though functionally, they are of the same age (= really old). I think it is fair to point out that it matters at what point in time you ask and answer the question whether Biden is still capable to do the job of President.

Biden's track record to me is a clear sign he was able to form a team of highly capable individuals around him while he created a schedule that — in the past — allowed him to fulfill his duties. Just. At the same time, Biden's decline is visible. (As is Trump's in my mind.) Should Biden have tried to run for re-election. Clearly no.

My second point of criticism is that the current discussion only focusses almost exclusively on Biden. If the choice were between Trump and Biden, two very old men who are, to me, of functionally the same age, even now I still think you could make an argument for Biden over Trump. And the quality of the people that surround these two men would be a very important component. Still, you would have to choose between two bad options, both men should not stand for re-election. Even if Trump appears more vigorous at the moment, we know from our own lives and examples like Biden and McConnell that with age health can decline precipitously. And Trump's word salads have not become better.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

And it's exactly what 30-50% of Americans have voted for in the past two elections.

But is it because 30–50 % of Americans genuinely wanted two old people running for office or because those were the choices they were given? IMHO it is the latter. Primaries, especially the way they are run in the US, do not necessarily favor candidates with the broadest appeal in the election.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

It was a vast smear campaign that Biden was in his basement or a complete drooling vegetable. It was disproven every time Biden strung two sentences together. Any fumble at all was seen as cognitive decline while the other side got a free pass. Biden gets dinged for using a teleprompter - which every politician uses for formal speeches. Johnson used one at the RNC and had to abandon his speech when it shut down. Complete hypocrisy and spin.

The issue is that the exaggerated claims, which started when Biden ran for office, set the bar so low that both men passed it for a long time. The bar set the public expectations too low.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

FWIW, I don't think Biden's lost his marbles. But to paraphrase doctor who, "he looks tired. don't you think he looks tired?". I hope he finishes his term with a bang and walks out on stage with Kamala head held high.

In my experience with dealing with old people, the issue isn't “losing one's marbles”. Yes, that can happen, but usually it is just that the endurance, the capacity to do hard work, decreases precipitously. Trump during his term was also on a much lighter schedule than his predecessors. Perhaps many critics ascribed it to Trump's laziness, but it is an important factor in getting work done at an advanced age.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Beshear or Kelly sound good as military guys who appeal across parties. Manchin might appeal to conservatives, but all dems hate him with 1000 suns. Fencesitter who let Rs get away with crap.

Tapping Manchin for VP would be a clear mistake. He is not liked and in my opinion does not come across as very likable, in stark contrast to e. g. Kelly or Shapiro. Harris is also not in the “likable” category, I view her as someone who is a lot better at doing the job of President than running for it.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Except that isn't my argument: I was referring to exaggerated claims that started before Biden's election, which accused him of “Being senile” while simultaneously being so capable that “our freedoms are on the line.”

It's a key point of facism.

Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.

Claims like these started as a political smear campaign as wild exaggerations, which made it more difficult to discuss seriously. Those exaggerated claims set the bar so low that Biden passed it by doing the bare minimum. Worse, they set the bar in the wrong place.

It was mostly an argument about stuttering during speeches, which the right pointed to as evidence of a failing mind and the left defended as a stutter that he's had for decades.

At the same time, Trump's age was not an issue even though functionally, they are of the same age (= really old). I think it is fair to point out that it matters at what point in time you ask and answer the question whether Biden is still capable to do the job of President.

Biden's track record to me is a clear sign he was able to form a team of highly capable individuals around him while he created a schedule that — in the past — allowed him to fulfill his duties.

This kind of begs the question of what a president's duties really are, and how many strings can be pulled behind the scenes. Critics would claim that Biden has "handlers" that do all of the actual work and periodically cart him out for speaking engagements. Is that enough for a successful presidency?

Even if Trump appears more vigorous at the moment, we know from our own lives and examples like Biden and McConnell that with age health can decline precipitously. And Trump's word salads have not become better.

Trump's mental decline (or potential for it) probably isn't even in the top 10 reasons I wouldn't vote for him - his term was a chaotic hellscape of drama, fraud, indictments, and a revolving door of cabinet members that either couldn't stand being there or got kicked out the first time they tried to do something good for America. Trump at 100% mental capacity (or whatever he was at in 2016) was a disaster for America and the world. I don't know if it gets better or worse if that 100% declines.

But is it because 30–50 % of Americans genuinely wanted two old people running for office or because those were the choices they were given? IMHO it is the latter. Primaries, especially the way they are run in the US, do not necessarily favor candidates with the broadest appeal in the election.

I was speaking more to the fact that some percentage of Americans (Trump voters) genuinely want a dictator in charge and will gladly give up all of their freedom to get it, as long as it helps them believe that they are strong and have "won."

[subego]

Trump voters want a dictator seems a touch reductive.

[Laminar]

Spend more time around Trump voters. The culture war is all that exists, and they're desperate for a savior from the many ills of our horrific modern society. The Dow is at record highs, they all have brand new $60k trucks and they believe the economy is in the absolute shitter. The Deep State is pulling the strings behind the curtain, DEI is ruining our benevolent corporations that only exist to help the poor working class, we have to carry guns at all time because at Wal-Mart a car full of brown people might park next to us.

[andi*pandi]

In their idea of a trump presidency, a dictatorship would NEVER negatively impact THEM. Their religion, bodily rights, economics, taxes, wars, would all benefit THEM.

Leopards only eat democrat faces, right?

[subego]

@Lam

Honest question: do you fight with people about politics?

If you do, that will skew your sample towards people who want a fight.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Lam

Honest question: do you fight with people about politics?

If you do, that will skew your sample towards people who want a fight.

I do not. The only place I ever talk politics is here and at home with my wife. Not at work, not with family, not on social media, and not at social gatherings. I am not "out" in real life and I'm surrounded on all sides by avid Trump supporters, so I hear what they say when they think they're in safe company. I don't watch or directly consume any source of news, I delete any social media friends that mention politics, I 100% quit Reddit. My only Instagram follows are friends and car-building accounts.

[subego]

Interesting! I’m in a similar situation but reversed.

I’ve noticed a rough correlation between someone’s intelligence and the quality of political arguments they present. Does this hold in any way with the people you interact with?

[andi*pandi]

Guys, I think we just got ding'd.

Interestingly, there is some rumors that Trump has buyers remorse over picking JD Vance. We'll see.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Interesting! I’m in a similar situation but reversed.

I’ve noticed a rough correlation between someone’s intelligence and the quality of political arguments they present. Does this hold in any way with the people you interact with?

Intelligence is too broad a descriptor. I know a very successful multi-millionaire business owner that is obsessed with Hunter Biden and the threat posed to society by trans people. Is he intelligent? Sure. He's personable, great at his job, a captivating storyteller, quick on his feet, clearly capable of significant monetary success, and able to understand, decypher, and solve technical issues at a high level.

But he chooses to consume media that envelops him in a narrative that has him obsessed with a manufactured culture war. He can't have a single conversation without steering it toward DEI or Musk's latest tweet or how horrible it is that you have to be so PC these days.

Wasn't there a thread on this forum back in the day that was basically, "Conservatives: Show me your thought leaders" and no one had an answer? All of American conservatism from the last 40 years is neatly summed up in Project 2025 - "Traditional power structures existed for good reasons and we should return to them."

Which once again, ties neatly into facism:

"The cult of tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
...
"The rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
...
"Fear of difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
...
"Appeal to a frustrated middle class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
...
"Obsession with a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
...
"Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality".
...
"Newspeak" – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

[subego]

I guess I was asking about the spread. Is there anyone who has non (or less) culture war behind their vote for Trump?

As an example, a Trump voter I know doesn’t particularly like the guy, but is full-on Catholic, and (correctly) surmised he would support her pro-life agenda better than the alternative. That’s it. Not a part of his cult.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I guess I was asking about the spread. Is there anyone who has non (or less) culture war behind their vote for Trump?

As an example, a Trump voter I know doesn’t particularly like the guy, but is full-on Catholic, and (correctly) surmised he would support her pro-life agenda better than the alternative. That’s it. Not a part of his cult.

The only thing more OG culture war than abortion is racism.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It's a key point of facism.

Yup.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It was mostly an argument about stuttering during speeches, which the right pointed to as evidence of a failing mind and the left defended as a stutter that he's had for decades.

Stuttering + biological age.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

This kind of begs the question of what a president's duties really are, and how many strings can be pulled behind the scenes. Critics would claim that Biden has "handlers" that do all of the actual work and periodically cart him out for speaking engagements. Is that enough for a successful presidency?

I live in a country where politicians typically retire at the same ages that normal, ambitious people retire, mid- to late-60s. Our former chancellor just turned 70 and she choose to retire a few years ago.

What drives me up the wall is that Biden and Trump are graded on different curves. Every argument about Biden being too old applies verbatim to Trump.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Trump's mental decline (or potential for it) probably isn't even in the top 10 reasons I wouldn't vote for him - his term was a chaotic hellscape of drama, fraud, indictments, and a revolving door of cabinet members that either couldn't stand being there or got kicked out the first time they tried to do something good for America. Trump at 100% mental capacity (or whatever he was at in 2016) was a disaster for America and the world. I don't know if it gets better or worse if that 100% declines.

Yeah, and this is why I think in a (now hypothetical) race Trump vs. Biden the teams that both men have selected matters greatly for exactly the reasons you give. What is worse, unlike in 2016 where Trump did not seriously expect to win, this time his campaign has prepared a list of loyalists for all relevant government posts. Plus an insane game plan to boot.