Former US President Biden diagnosed with 'aggressive' prostate cancer
reuters.com
reuters.com
Unrelated: It is less than a year since he decided to not stand for election. This time last year he planned to stay in power for four more years. Prostate cancer as is as I understand it slow-growing. Could it have been there already when he planned for re-election, how regular are health checks in that position?
In this case it truly appears like he/they(ie his family) knew a long time ago but either he didnt want to admit it or they didn’t want him to (which would force him to step down). So instead they hid it from the public and did what SJ did. Aka nothing.
> It is without question, and may be even worse than Watergate in some ways, because Richard Nixon was in control of his faculties when he wasn’t drinking
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5321613-jake-tapper-water...
They needed something to shift that cycle, and distract.
Furthermore, I think it's questionable at best to suggest that someone released news as grave as their likely terminal cancer prognosis simply to shift the news cycle. That goes doubly for Biden, given his family history with (albeit brain) cancer.
> 25th Amendment can be applied retroactively
He's not the president anymore. What would be the point? Another bullshit end run to try to invalidate every law or EO he signed?
> They needed something to shift that cycle, and distract.
"They" being his family, or what? Who are they?
Truly remarkable how hard people will go to never have to admit “losing face”.
Not only did they very obviously lie to your face, they’re now continuing to lie and you, instead of calling out their lies, and demanding accountability or something are gobbling up the lies and asking for more.
Your incredulity doesn’t make you look clever it makes you look foolish, because everyone else knows who “they” is. Everyone else knows why the Biden family would do the thing every single politician has done since time immemorial when a bad news cycle is about to break (ie distract with a sympathetic story). And you’re sitting here asking “what is a bad news cycle?”
The Jake tapper book points to an intentional cover up by Biden, his entire family and staff. It implicates nearly the entire DNC leadership. It’s not just a sad story about elder abuse, it’s an entire administration spending four years overtly lying to the public. It calls into question not just all those people’s credibility and integrity but also implicates them in multiple felonies.
It’s pretty obvious why his family and supposed friends would do anything to try to distract from their crimes and say “he’s dying leave him alone”
> Truly remarkable how hard people will go to never have to admit “losing face”.
> Not only did they very obviously lie to your face, they’re now continuing to lie and you, instead of calling out their lies, and demanding accountability or something are gobbling up the lies and asking for more.
> Your incredulity doesn’t make you look clever it makes you look foolish, because everyone else knows who “they” is.
I think you need to take a step back and read my comment again. You're not engaging in good faith here, you're a hair's breadth away from labeling me a sheep or npc. Is "gobbling up lies and asking for more" truly what you think I'm doing? Don't you think you could find a more charitable interpretation of my argument?
> And you’re sitting here asking “what is a bad news cycle?”
I didn't ask that.
> The Jake tapper book points to an intentional cover up by Biden, his entire family and staff. It implicates nearly the entire DNC leadership. It’s not just a sad story about elder abuse, it’s an entire administration spending four years overtly lying to the public. It calls into question not just all those people’s credibility and integrity but also implicates them in multiple felonies.
Why should I believe Jake Tapper's take on events over Bob Woodward's take on events? I've read War by Woodward, and while it's not kind to Biden at times especially regarding his age and mental acuity, it certainly doesn't paint him as senile.
But even if we disregard books from venerated journalists, we can see with our own eyes that he's not senile. He's done several interviews after leaving office where he's the same Joe he's always been -- mumbling and stumbling, but lucid.
Anyone can watch videos of biden from the start of his career to 2016 and then when he came back into the spotlight in 2019, they can then simply watch any video from 2019 until today and see an absolutely marked shift in mental capacity from 2016. Even if his family was in denial in 2019 when he first started his run for office, it became pretty clear by the middle of 2020 to anyone with eyes and ears that he was experiencing dementia.
All those video are online, and easily searchable. the claims you're making don't make any sense and aren't based in reality.
here we go
> I wouldn't describe either of those things as a bad news cycle for Biden, chiefly because he's not the president anymore and hasn't been in the news for what amounts to an eternity in the political world.
But he has been in the news, and people who aren't the President can have negative press. I suppose by your definition you could say it's not a bad news cycle for Biden --since he's senile-- but rather his team, the press corps, the media generally, and certainly Democrats who are trying to make a case for the midterms.
> The only person I've seen mentioning this nothingburger had been Nate Silver
I don't follow Nate Silver. The NYT and Dems hyped him for years but I never thought much of him. "Akshually", why do you follow Nate Silver? Why do you follow people who care what Nate Silver thinks?
> Furthermore, I think it's questionable at best to suggest that someone released news as grave as their likely terminal cancer prognosis simply to shift the news cycle.
Perhaps you need to get more in tune with US politics. This is simple stuff and very common. Biden has done far worse.
> That goes doubly for Biden, given his family history with (albeit brain) cancer.
Biden, in fact, often brought up that very thing to help him in political arguments. I don't really hold that against him.
> He's not the president anymore. What would be the point?
justice, I suppose
> Another bullshit end run to try to invalidate every law or EO he signed?
Well, it wouldn't be "bullshit" then.
> "They" being his family, or what? Who are they?
The Biden family certainly, since I think everything goes through Jill.
?
> since he's senile
You're already arguing from a position of bad faith and frankly it's going to be a waste of anyone's time to engage with you.
> I don't follow Nate Silver. The NYT and Dems hyped him for years but I never thought much of him. "Akshually", why do you follow Nate Silver? Why do you follow people who care what Nate Silver thinks?
I don't follow him either. I had to Google what this bad news cycle was and found an article by Nate Silver published a couple days ago that uses this book you're talking about as a jumping off point to say "haha I was right about Biden being old" in typical Nate silver fashion.
You're mistaking facts that make you uncomfortable for bad faith argument. Biden's senility isn't in dispute --at least among those that matter-- which is why the media types are throwing his family and his administration under the bus. A bad faith argument would be those who said he was "as sharp as ever" or that "this version of Biden intellectually, analytically, is the best version of Biden ever". A bad faith argument would be grabbing one result from a half-assed Google search and trying to pass it off as insight.
> frankly it's going to be a waste of anyone's time to engage with you.
if only!
At any rate, it doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree here. To me it seems obvious you're not a close observer of US political news. It's not controversial to say that Joe Biden is senile and was senile during his presidency. There have been numerous articles in outlets that you no doubt respect stating as much, and they blame the Biden family and administration for hiding that fact from them. In the last week there have been articles in the NYT, Axios, Politico, The Financial Times, CNN, The New Yorker, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, the AP, NPR, The Nation reporting on and discussing the issue. Whatever your personal opinion may be, the mainstream opinion is that Biden was and is cognitively impaired, and that it was covered up by Biden's family and his administration. And this was completely off your radar until you read it here? And you Googled it, said "well if Nate Silver believes it then it's untrue", and you were cocksure enough to post what you were thinking?
I really don't know what to tell you, except that maybe you should try using better search terms. For example, when I looked for articles about this issue recently I went to Google and typed in the phrase "Joe Biden".