Is there anyone out there who thinks that Joe Biden is mentally capable to be President? I don't. But, I like Kamala as a VP pick and I think she will replace JB within first 2 years.
Kamala is a great pick. She knows politics. She's also asian, african-jamican and married to a white jewish lawyer.
The other choice is Mad King Donnie, and you question Biden's mental capability to be president?!? ROFLMAO. But, yes, Harris will also make a great president. The nation will need a full two terms of her administration after Biden to continue to repair the damage done by Twittler and his enablers.
@10:28 – @10:21 here – I have no admiration for Kamala. She had an affair with the Mayor of San Fran, likely she thought it would help her politically. She was a stereotypical prosecutor who imprisoned countless minorities for minor crimes and in many cases refused to overturn convictions when the evidence was clear. Now she pretends she supports Black Lives Matter- and no doubt she does. She will get destroyed by Pence in any debate just as she was destroyed in the primary debates. So – no I don't admire drive. I admire character. She has no character.
10:32 – Both are obviously suffering serious cognitive decline. It isn't ageist to say so. No one is saying Trump and Biden are incompetent because they're old. Both are clearly shells of their former selves, especially Biden, who was an impressive intellect for decades.
Guest
Anonymous
August 12, 2020 5:54 pm
It's bizarre that anyone thinks Biden isn't mentally fit, but somehow trump is? trump can't even form a coherent sentence, much less national policy.
I have never voted for a republican and I have no intention of starting now, but Biden is clearly deteriorating fast. He can barely get through a zoom interview without staring off into space. Fortunately it looks like he might be able to win without doing anything, but we don't have to pretend he's the guy he was in 1988 or 2008 or 2016 for that matter.
Guest
Anonymous
August 12, 2020 6:06 pm
Biden/Harris…works for me. #RepublicansForTheRepublic
Me too. Been a lifelong Republican. Will do whatever it takes to vote against Dimwitted Don, and any assholes who try to ride his coattails.
Guest
Anonymous
August 12, 2020 6:28 pm
10:28 "sleep to the top" is typical patriarchy diatribe without any basis in fact. Your misogyny is showing. False assertions like "sleep to the top" only show you have no factual basis to discredit Ms. Harris.
Wow that's sure is a lot of loaded woke dog whistles you managed to fit in one sentence 11:28 – kudos! I am going to guess you are under 35 and learned all these during your "micro aggression" feminism classes…
But lets discuss "sleeping to the top" shall we?
Kamala Harris used an affair that she had with a married man — Willie Brown — to launch her political career. Kamala Harris and Willie Brown had a relationship in the mid 1990s. At the time, Harris was working as an attorney in various city offices, without being able to get a foothold in any of them. Brown, who is nearly 30 years older than Harris, had been elected mayor after serving in the state legislature for more than 30 years. After their relationship, Harris started getting promoted and was ultimately appointed to Assembly by Willie, who also helped her become the DA of San Francisco.
And finally – if this does not sway your liberal senses – here is Willie Brown himself on Kamala Harris circa 2019:
"Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco."
So pointing out that she used an affair with a married politician for personal gain to rise to the level of the District Attorney of the State of California is a fair criticism of Madam Harris – and one that will surely be brought up during the campaign. In fact I saw my very first "JOE and HOE2020" sticker today… that was fast!
1:43, even if all that is true(and I have read similar material), I would submit a couple observations:
1. Many(if not most) people who rise to the political pinnacle have some potentially really disturbing history of how they achieved certain steps up the ladder; and
2.If someone achieves a positon by means other than pure merit, did they prove themselves worthy of the positon, and fulfill its duties adequately, once in such positon?
I guess my problem, 1:43, is that you may be seeking to hold her to some exacting moral standard that many of your favored republican politicians may fail to satisfy as well.
You do admittedly raise some possibly troubling aspects of her professional trajectory, but much of that material(the affair, etc.) is nearly 30 years old. So, let's assume her paramour helped her achieve placement on a couple commissions, and helped her become Frisco D.A.
But that said, isn't it far more fair, and far more relevant, to evaluate her based on her performance as Cal. Attorney General, and then U.S. Senator. If you don't like her performance in those positions, fair enough. But that is where the focus should be–her performance in the critical positons she either currently holds or held in recent years. How she got on some local commission in the 90's is really pretty far afield.
I also sense that because she is a female you are holding her to some exacting moral, life-style, standard that you may not be requiring of your favored republican male politicians.
Guest
Anonymous
August 12, 2020 7:57 pm
Looking forward to all you national politics commentators starting your own blog: national politics blog. How about las vegas law blog focuses on las vegas law. Go pollute other blogs with your vitriol at each other.
Wait, is 12:57 senile? Yes, you say? Great, 12:57, you're in!
Guest
Anonymous
August 12, 2020 8:31 pm
What's the word on the liability protection bill? Reasonable, useful, unreasonable, useless? Don't practice HR law, but listening to a CLE it's terrifying times for both employers and employees.
Why is it needed? Who can show causation for Covid-19? You would need an epidemiologist to do tracing and with discovery and expert fees on that issue alone it would cost at least 7 figures.
More importantly, immunity means you can't be held responsible. Should anyone not be held accountable in life? It merely lowers the standards as you have no accountability.
To me it feels like a restatement of already established negligence law. If you meet the standard of care (duty), then you're not liable. However, if you don't meet the standard of care, then you can be held responsible. How does SB4 change this?
“If you follow health standards then you’re immune, unless you didn’t follow health standards.”
-SB4
Guest
Anonymous
August 12, 2020 9:23 pm
As for Joe Biden and his mental/physical state, I think that both sides have legitimate points but have over-stated their case.
He is not in phenomenal condition as a recent released report from his physician may indicate. Nor has he been reduced to drooling senility as the other side would have us believe.
Input from a former white house physician, who attended to Obama, and Biden as well at times, during the Obama/Biden administration, takes the appropriate middle position. This physician takes serious issue with the recent report from Biden's current physician asserting that Biden is in remarkable condition.
That said, although this physician believes Biden is absolutely not in remarkable condition, that he is not in too bad condition for a 77-year-old. He noted a few health issues percolating just beneath the surface, that although apparently medicated, could erupt at any time.
And although he at times seems a bit befuddled or forgetful, that is normal for many 77-year-olds, and is not necessarily evidence of serious dementia.
So, if he is in roughly average health for his age, the average man who has already reached 77,in at least average health, probably has a life span of about another 8 or 10 years.
Thus, Biden could easily live to be 85 or 87, and the law of averages may in fact be in his favor.
Therefore, I don't necessarily agree with the view that he will die within a year or two of assuming the presidency, leaving us with President Harris.
But it could well happen, even thought the more likely result is that he will live into his mid or late 80's, and all of the time deteriorating further.
So, problem is, even if he does not pass on early in his presidency or is rendered unfit, even if the somewhat more likely contingency occurs–he spends his presidency drifting into his 80's and all the time deteriorating further from a mental and physical standpoint–that is not too reassuring either.
Electing people at 68, 70, or even 72, is okay in most cases, but he will be 78 when he takes office if he is elected, and that really seems to be an unduly risky situation.
I just wish we could appreciate nuance, and not be controlled by extremes as dictated by either political party. Democrats tend to insist that he is really fit, which is probably not the case, while republicans tend to insist he is among the walking dead, which likewise seems unfair.
Maybe. The Trump campaign better hope so. Because they couldn't be setting the bar any lower.
If he's as strong as he was in the many primary debates only a few months ago, he'll be more than fine.
You realize that it's Donald very-stable-genius drink-some-bleach Trump he'll be up against, right? Everyone questioning Biden's mental capacity seems to brush past that aspect.
The "you realize" smug lead-in exposes you as Maddow junkie, but hopefully not. Regardless, can't say I'm a Trump fan necessarily, but he'll make mince meat of Biden in a debate. You remember the 2016 election debates, right?
Your premise: Trump will make mincemeat of Biden in a debate. Supporting evidence: Recollection of 2016 debates.
My opposition to your premise: Trump lost the 2016 debates. Review any polling data from any reputable organization following each debate.
Your Rejoinder: Huh huh, but look at what eventually happened, and please ignore any lack of attempt to connect the debate performance to the election results.
There were a number of reasons for Trump's victory, most of which don't apply to the 2020 election. His debate performance isn't one of them. Hell, this is a man who literally read off the same word-for-word talking points in multiple "press conferences" in successive days, apparently without noticing. Thinking is not Trump's strong point. Being a massive asshole is. Except that won't really play against Biden, because every argument against Biden can be made with equal force against Trump. Age and cognitive ability? Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV.
And Trump is a winner, like him or not. Again, scoreboard. Biden is not a winner, reference his unsuccessful presidential runs. Kamala is simply not likable. The democrats decided to not select her as their presidential candidate. So, she was a loser among the dems a couple of months ago, but now is the political phenom that's going to ensure that senile Joe wins the election. Good luck with that.
That's what you say when you draft a soft-armed QB with accuracy problems too high, not the President who lost the popular vote by 3 million and lies about it.
Guest
Anonymous
August 12, 2020 9:29 pm
2:23–way, way too long.
But I do tend to agree that the issue seems more influenced by party affiliation, rather than objective consideration of the medical evidence.
Guest
Anonymous
August 13, 2020 4:08 pm
Bar Exam: The blog has been silent. How was it? Any reports?
Is there anyone out there who thinks that Joe Biden is mentally capable to be President? I don't. But, I like Kamala as a VP pick and I think she will replace JB within first 2 years.
Kamala is a great pick. She knows politics. She's also asian, african-jamican and married to a white jewish lawyer.
The other choice is Mad King Donnie, and you question Biden's mental capability to be president?!? ROFLMAO. But, yes, Harris will also make a great president. The nation will need a full two terms of her administration after Biden to continue to repair the damage done by Twittler and his enablers.
2nd the idea that Biden will resign at some point, certainly would not be expected to run again if he wins.
Kamala is a horrible pick. She tanked in the primaries for good reason. Democrats are screwed.
10:21 – Respectfully disagree. Kamala is a great politician. You have to admire the drive of any woman willing to sleep her way to the top.
Mentally capable? Yes, and a rocket scientist compared to the alternative. Would I prefer the younger version of him? Sure. But that's life.
I think we'll come to be ashamed of how ageist this rhetoric is. It's ugly and cruel to everyone over 75.
@10:28 – @10:21 here – I have no admiration for Kamala. She had an affair with the Mayor of San Fran, likely she thought it would help her politically. She was a stereotypical prosecutor who imprisoned countless minorities for minor crimes and in many cases refused to overturn convictions when the evidence was clear. Now she pretends she supports Black Lives Matter- and no doubt she does. She will get destroyed by Pence in any debate just as she was destroyed in the primary debates. So – no I don't admire drive. I admire character. She has no character.
10:32 – Both are obviously suffering serious cognitive decline. It isn't ageist to say so. No one is saying Trump and Biden are incompetent because they're old. Both are clearly shells of their former selves, especially Biden, who was an impressive intellect for decades.
It's bizarre that anyone thinks Biden isn't mentally fit, but somehow trump is? trump can't even form a coherent sentence, much less national policy.
What 10:54 said. This is truly the douche vs. turd sandwich situation. I'd vote for Voldemort before I vote for Trump, who is truly dangerous.
-A former member of the GOP
Hear, hear.
I have never voted for a republican and I have no intention of starting now, but Biden is clearly deteriorating fast. He can barely get through a zoom interview without staring off into space. Fortunately it looks like he might be able to win without doing anything, but we don't have to pretend he's the guy he was in 1988 or 2008 or 2016 for that matter.
Biden/Harris…works for me. #RepublicansForTheRepublic
Me too. Been a lifelong Republican. Will do whatever it takes to vote against Dimwitted Don, and any assholes who try to ride his coattails.
10:28 "sleep to the top" is typical patriarchy diatribe without any basis in fact. Your misogyny is showing. False assertions like "sleep to the top" only show you have no factual basis to discredit Ms. Harris.
Welcome to Nevada where discrimination against women is a power play to intimidate and control female attorneys.
I'm male, and I have slept my way to the bottom.
Wow that's sure is a lot of loaded woke dog whistles you managed to fit in one sentence 11:28 – kudos! I am going to guess you are under 35 and learned all these during your "micro aggression" feminism classes…
But lets discuss "sleeping to the top" shall we?
Kamala Harris used an affair that she had with a married man — Willie Brown — to launch her political career. Kamala Harris and Willie Brown had a relationship in the mid 1990s. At the time, Harris was working as an attorney in various city offices, without being able to get a foothold in any of them. Brown, who is nearly 30 years older than Harris, had been elected mayor after serving in the state legislature for more than 30 years. After their relationship, Harris started getting promoted and was ultimately appointed to Assembly by Willie, who also helped her become the DA of San Francisco.
And finally – if this does not sway your liberal senses – here is Willie Brown himself on Kamala Harris circa 2019:
"Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco."
So pointing out that she used an affair with a married politician for personal gain to rise to the level of the District Attorney of the State of California is a fair criticism of Madam Harris – and one that will surely be brought up during the campaign. In fact I saw my very first "JOE and HOE2020" sticker today… that was fast!
Do these standards apply only to the left?
1:43, even if all that is true(and I have read similar material), I would submit a couple observations:
1. Many(if not most) people who rise to the political pinnacle have some potentially really disturbing history of how they achieved certain steps up the ladder; and
2.If someone achieves a positon by means other than pure merit, did they prove themselves worthy of the positon, and fulfill its duties adequately, once in such positon?
I guess my problem, 1:43, is that you may be seeking to hold her to some exacting moral standard that many of your favored republican politicians may fail to satisfy as well.
You do admittedly raise some possibly troubling aspects of her professional trajectory, but much of that material(the affair, etc.) is nearly 30 years old. So, let's assume her paramour helped her achieve placement on a couple commissions, and helped her become Frisco D.A.
But that said, isn't it far more fair, and far more relevant, to evaluate her based on her performance as Cal. Attorney General, and then U.S. Senator. If you don't like her performance in those positions, fair enough. But that is where the focus should be–her performance in the critical positons she either currently holds or held in recent years. How she got on some local commission in the 90's is really pretty far afield.
I also sense that because she is a female you are holding her to some exacting moral, life-style, standard that you may not be requiring of your favored republican male politicians.
Looking forward to all you national politics commentators starting your own blog: national politics blog. How about las vegas law blog focuses on las vegas law. Go pollute other blogs with your vitriol at each other.
Speak the truth 12:57. I support your mission.
@ 12:57, you are the hero we need.
Vote 12:57 for President 2020!
Wait, is 12:57 senile? Yes, you say? Great, 12:57, you're in!
What's the word on the liability protection bill? Reasonable, useful, unreasonable, useless? Don't practice HR law, but listening to a CLE it's terrifying times for both employers and employees.
Why is it needed? Who can show causation for Covid-19? You would need an epidemiologist to do tracing and with discovery and expert fees on that issue alone it would cost at least 7 figures.
More importantly, immunity means you can't be held responsible. Should anyone not be held accountable in life? It merely lowers the standards as you have no accountability.
To me it feels like a restatement of already established negligence law. If you meet the standard of care (duty), then you're not liable. However, if you don't meet the standard of care, then you can be held responsible. How does SB4 change this?
(1) There is a presumption they did meet the standard; (2) you must show by clear and convincing evidence
“If you follow health standards then you’re immune, unless you didn’t follow health standards.”
-SB4
As for Joe Biden and his mental/physical state, I think that both sides have legitimate points but have over-stated their case.
He is not in phenomenal condition as a recent released report from his physician may indicate. Nor has he been reduced to drooling senility as the other side would have us believe.
Input from a former white house physician, who attended to Obama, and Biden as well at times, during the Obama/Biden administration, takes the appropriate middle position. This physician takes serious issue with the recent report from Biden's current physician asserting that Biden is in remarkable condition.
That said, although this physician believes Biden is absolutely not in remarkable condition, that he is not in too bad condition for a 77-year-old. He noted a few health issues percolating just beneath the surface, that although apparently medicated, could erupt at any time.
And although he at times seems a bit befuddled or forgetful, that is normal for many 77-year-olds, and is not necessarily evidence of serious dementia.
So, if he is in roughly average health for his age, the average man who has already reached 77,in at least average health, probably has a life span of about another 8 or 10 years.
Thus, Biden could easily live to be 85 or 87, and the law of averages may in fact be in his favor.
Therefore, I don't necessarily agree with the view that he will die within a year or two of assuming the presidency, leaving us with President Harris.
But it could well happen, even thought the more likely result is that he will live into his mid or late 80's, and all of the time deteriorating further.
So, problem is, even if he does not pass on early in his presidency or is rendered unfit, even if the somewhat more likely contingency occurs–he spends his presidency drifting into his 80's and all the time deteriorating further from a mental and physical standpoint–that is not too reassuring either.
Electing people at 68, 70, or even 72, is okay in most cases, but he will be 78 when he takes office if he is elected, and that really seems to be an unduly risky situation.
I just wish we could appreciate nuance, and not be controlled by extremes as dictated by either political party. Democrats tend to insist that he is really fit, which is probably not the case, while republicans tend to insist he is among the walking dead, which likewise seems unfair.
The debates will expose Biden's obvious struggle with senility. It will be sad, and I blame his family for allowing him to run.
Maybe. The Trump campaign better hope so. Because they couldn't be setting the bar any lower.
If he's as strong as he was in the many primary debates only a few months ago, he'll be more than fine.
You realize that it's Donald very-stable-genius drink-some-bleach Trump he'll be up against, right? Everyone questioning Biden's mental capacity seems to brush past that aspect.
We'll see.
The "you realize" smug lead-in exposes you as Maddow junkie, but hopefully not. Regardless, can't say I'm a Trump fan necessarily, but he'll make mince meat of Biden in a debate. You remember the 2016 election debates, right?
8:33,
All too well. Trump didn't win any of them.
Says you're subjective analysis. Objectively: He won the election. Scoreboard.
11:48:
Nice attempt to move the goalposts.
Your premise: Trump will make mincemeat of Biden in a debate. Supporting evidence: Recollection of 2016 debates.
My opposition to your premise: Trump lost the 2016 debates. Review any polling data from any reputable organization following each debate.
Your Rejoinder: Huh huh, but look at what eventually happened, and please ignore any lack of attempt to connect the debate performance to the election results.
There were a number of reasons for Trump's victory, most of which don't apply to the 2020 election. His debate performance isn't one of them. Hell, this is a man who literally read off the same word-for-word talking points in multiple "press conferences" in successive days, apparently without noticing. Thinking is not Trump's strong point. Being a massive asshole is. Except that won't really play against Biden, because every argument against Biden can be made with equal force against Trump. Age and cognitive ability? Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV.
Also, "your."
You made me laugh. Trump is a genius. Anyone who fails to see that is not paying attention.
And Trump is a winner, like him or not. Again, scoreboard. Biden is not a winner, reference his unsuccessful presidential runs. Kamala is simply not likable. The democrats decided to not select her as their presidential candidate. So, she was a loser among the dems a couple of months ago, but now is the political phenom that's going to ensure that senile Joe wins the election. Good luck with that.
That's what you say when you draft a soft-armed QB with accuracy problems too high, not the President who lost the popular vote by 3 million and lies about it.
2:23–way, way too long.
But I do tend to agree that the issue seems more influenced by party affiliation, rather than objective consideration of the medical evidence.
Bar Exam: The blog has been silent. How was it? Any reports?