Joe Biden gaffe and verbal bungles watch

[SDHornet]

Thank God for the 25th Amendment. Should we ever get that far.

We are there right now.

msm talking point alert

[kalm]

We are there right now.

msm talking point alert

Good.

[kalm]

And that Biden video...wow! Like I said before this stuff generally didn’t improve.

I’d say odds of Biden being the nominee are about 50/50.

[Gil Dobie]

Biden Trump debate would be great entertainment, but a sad look at the leadership of this country.

[GannonFan]

And that Biden video...wow! Like I said before this stuff generally didn’t improve.

I’d say odds of Biden being the nominee are about 50/50.

Agreed, there's no cure for just being too old. I have no ill will towards Biden, I don't think he's a bad guy and he's not been a bad politician - he's been fine really. But he has to step away at this point, for his health and for the good of the election. I think Bernie's a kook and maybe someone else steps up and tries to win the nomination through the convention, but Biden can't go into the fall as the candidate or Trump could win this thing in a walk. When you make Trump look good by comparison that should really send a shock through the party.

[kalm]

And that Biden video...wow! Like I said before this stuff generally didn’t improve.

I’d say odds of Biden being the nominee are about 50/50.

Agreed, there's no cure for just being too old. I have no ill will towards Biden, I don't think he's a bad guy and he's not been a bad politician - he's been fine really. But he has to step away at this point, for his health and for the good of the election. I think Bernie's a kook and maybe someone else steps up and tries to win the nomination through the convention, but Biden can't go into the fall as the candidate or Trump could win this thing in a walk. When you make Trump look good by comparison that should really send a shock through the party.

Yep. And we’ve already seen what the establishment will do to Bernie. He’s got no chance even though I think he’d be a good crisis period leader.

[GannonFan]

Agreed, there's no cure for just being too old. I have no ill will towards Biden, I don't think he's a bad guy and he's not been a bad politician - he's been fine really. But he has to step away at this point, for his health and for the good of the election. I think Bernie's a kook and maybe someone else steps up and tries to win the nomination through the convention, but Biden can't go into the fall as the candidate or Trump could win this thing in a walk. When you make Trump look good by comparison that should really send a shock through the party.

Yep. And we’ve already seen what the establishment will do to Bernie. He’s got no chance even though I think he’d be a good crisis period leader.

I wouldn't go that far and call Bernie a "good crisis period leader". To be a leader you need to bring people along with you - Bernie has been a maverick for decades and really lives on the fringe. That's not necessarily a typically good resume for someone to rally people together. Heck, you've seen him hit a wall in terms of support within the political party that is tailor made already to be amenable to his policy ideas, and that's just half of the electorate.

I don't know what the Dems do at this point to improve things, I think they're stuck with rolling Biden out there, minimize the times he's shown live, and just cross their fingers that they can slide him through the process. It's a dicey proposition. Maybe they pick a VP candidate who they can slide in at the convention and have them take over as the candidate. Not sure who'd that be at this point as it would almost need to be someone who wasn't already in the field and had already been beaten by Sanders.

[Ibanez]

I find myself cringing more than laughing, yikes:

My favorite was him just wandering off.

The guy just doesn't seem well.

[kalm]

Yep. And we’ve already seen what the establishment will do to Bernie. He’s got no chance even though I think he’d be a good crisis period leader.

I wouldn't go that far and call Bernie a "good crisis period leader". To be a leader you need to bring people along with you - Bernie has been a maverick for decades and really lives on the fringe. That's not necessarily a typically good resume for someone to rally people together. Heck, you've seen him hit a wall in terms of support within the political party that is tailor made already to be amenable to his policy ideas, and that's just half of the electorate.

I don't know what the Dems do at this point to improve things, I think they're stuck with rolling Biden out there, minimize the times he's shown live, and just cross their fingers that they can slide him through the process. It's a dicey proposition. Maybe they pick a VP candidate who they can slide in at the convention and have them take over as the candidate. Not sure who'd that be at this point as it would almost need to be someone who wasn't already in the field and had already been beaten by Sanders.

You could be right regarding unification.

I just think the most vulnerable need the most protection right now. The wealthy will rebound quickly and I’m not worried about them nor do I expect them take care of the rest. We are a very greedy culture and have swung that direction for decades. That mindset has permeated all of our systems from healthcare to manufacturing.

[CAA Flagship]

Yep. And we’ve already seen what the establishment will do to Bernie. He’s got no chance even though I think he’d be a good crisis period leader.

Depends on the crisis. And this crisis may not be one of them.
If you think of Katrina, that was a one sided crisis. From a Federal standpoint, it was all about help and recovery after the storm. Bernie could have done fine with that.
But this crisis started at the beginning of a long storm. And it's a matter of finding the proper balance between economy and health. Since Bernie shows limited interest in the economy, he would have leaned heavily on the health side. We'll never know what the best response is. We can only pick at small things that are very close to the actual path chosen because the further you stray, the harder it would be to prove the outcome.

[kalm]

Yep. And we’ve already seen what the establishment will do to Bernie. He’s got no chance even though I think he’d be a good crisis period leader.

Depends on the crisis. And this crisis may not be one of them.
If you think of Katrina, that was a one sided crisis. From a Federal standpoint, it was all about help and recovery after the storm. Bernie could have done fine with that.
But this crisis started at the beginning of a long storm. And it's a matter of finding the proper balance between economy and health. Since Bernie shows limited interest in the economy, he would have leaned heavily on the health side. We'll never know what the best response is. We can only pick at small things that are very close to the actual path chosen because the further you stray, the harder it would be to prove the outcome.

That’s assuming an either or choice. The economy will rebound if the health is addressed first. The quicker it’s addressed the quicker the economy recovers. I personally think the longevity of the crisis and the need for government intervention is underestimated.

It’s also the same old debate between supply and demand. You can pump up the supply side but unless the working class majority isn’t made whole first it won’t matter.

The stock market is the economy only for some.

[CAA Flagship]

Depends on the crisis. And this crisis may not be one of them.
If you think of Katrina, that was a one sided crisis. From a Federal standpoint, it was all about help and recovery after the storm. Bernie could have done fine with that.
But this crisis started at the beginning of a long storm. And it's a matter of finding the proper balance between economy and health. Since Bernie shows limited interest in the economy, he would have leaned heavily on the health side. We'll never know what the best response is. We can only pick at small things that are very close to the actual path chosen because the further you stray, the harder it would be to prove the outcome.

That’s assuming an either or choice. The economy will rebound if the health is addressed first. The quicker it’s addressed the quicker the economy recovers. I personally think the longevity of the crisis and the need for government intervention is underestimated.

It’s also the same old debate between supply and demand. You can pump up the supply side but unless the working class majority isn’t made whole first it won’t matter.

The stock market is the economy only for some.

Well if you want to spend less time on health, you let it run it's course and don't flatten the curve. Yup, more people will die. But the crisis could end earlier, thus putting far less stress on the economy. I'm not advocating this type of response, but that's what the chart says.

[kalm]

That’s assuming an either or choice. The economy will rebound if the health is addressed first. The quicker it’s addressed the quicker the economy recovers. I personally think the longevity of the crisis and the need for government intervention is underestimated.

It’s also the same old debate between supply and demand. You can pump up the supply side but unless the working class majority isn’t made whole first it won’t matter.

The stock market is the economy only for some.

Well if you want to spend less time on health, you let it run it's course and don't flatten the curve. Yup, more people will die. But the crisis could end earlier, thus putting far less stress on the economy. I'm not advocating this type of response, but that's what the chart says.

1) That doesn't show hospital beds, ventilators, masks, and breakdown of the healthcare system. There's indication that prolonged or increased exposure increases the severity of the symptoms. We could also run out of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists. That stress trickles down to non-covid 19 healthcare cases as well. That's where it becomes exponential.

2) Your point is also similar to the Freakonomics study that showed abortions reduce crime.........

[CAA Flagship]

Well if you want to spend less time on health, you let it run it's course and don't flatten the curve. Yup, more people will die. But the crisis could end earlier, thus putting far less stress on the economy. I'm not advocating this type of response, but that's what the chart says.

1) That doesn't show hospital beds, ventilators, masks, and breakdown of the healthcare system. There's indication that prolonged or increased exposure increases the severity of the symptoms. We could also run out of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists. That stress trickles down to non-covid 19 healthcare cases as well. That's where it becomes exponential.

2) Your point is also similar to the Freakonomics study that showed abortions reduce crime.........

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. My point is that this crisis has three stressed components: Health, economy, financial system. The Federal Reserve is responsible for the financial system and they have responded in record time. Far quicker than during the crisis in '08-'09. That leaves health and economy for elected officials. Bernie is too one-sided to believe he would be focused on trying to strike a balance in his response. Too far to one side would cause more harm to the other side.

Trump has been spared many tough decisions because of the voluntary cancellation of sporting events, concerts, and schools, among other things. And Governors and Mayors have been making the shelter-in-place calls to respond to their unique geographic conditions. Would Bernie have let these stakeholders make their own decisions or would he have made it for them? We'll never know, and we'll never know what the impact (positive and negative) would have been. But that is the only direction Bernie would have gone. He certainly would not have ordered everything to stay open. Maybe leaning more to the health side would be better in the long run. Again, we will never know what an alternate path would give us, but a person who leans as far to one side as Bernie does would not make a good crisis leader, IMO. At least not in this one.

[kalm]

1) That doesn't show hospital beds, ventilators, masks, and breakdown of the healthcare system. There's indication that prolonged or increased exposure increases the severity of the symptoms. We could also run out of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists. That stress trickles down to non-covid 19 healthcare cases as well. That's where it becomes exponential.

2) Your point is also similar to the Freakonomics study that showed abortions reduce crime.........

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. My point is that this crisis has three stressed components: Health, economy, financial system. The Federal Reserve is responsible for the financial system and they have responded in record time. Far quicker than during the crisis in '08-'09. That leaves health and economy for elected officials. Bernie is too one-sided to believe he would be focused on trying to strike a balance in his response. Too far to one side would cause more harm to the other side.

Trump has been spared many tough decisions because of the voluntary cancellation of sporting events, concerts, and schools, among other things. And Governors and Mayors have been making the shelter-in-place calls to respond to their unique geographic conditions. Would Bernie have let these stakeholders make their own decisions or would he have made it for them? We'll never know, and we'll never know what the impact (positive and negative) would have been. But that is the only direction Bernie would have gone. He certainly would not have ordered everything to stay open. Maybe leaning more to the health side would be better in the long run. Again, we will never know what an alternate path would give us, but a person who leans as far to one side as Bernie does would not make a good crisis leader, IMO. At least not in this one.

I disagree on leadership, honesty, and intellectual curiosity alone. Besides, Bernie would be dealing with the (hopefully) the aftermath and recovery. There are long term consequences to this that will be felt by the working class especially for years and also include a further entrenchment of power. That’s concerning.

But I get what you’re saying regarding state leaders rising up. That’s not a bad thing. I just think the system would prevent a wild swing to socialism even IF that’s what Bernie was after.

[UNI88]

2) Your point is also similar to the Freakonomics study that showed abortions reduce crime.........

What's wrong with that Freakonomics study? Better than anything that quack, Malcolm Gladwell has dreamed up.

[CAA Flagship]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. My point is that this crisis has three stressed components: Health, economy, financial system. The Federal Reserve is responsible for the financial system and they have responded in record time. Far quicker than during the crisis in '08-'09. That leaves health and economy for elected officials. Bernie is too one-sided to believe he would be focused on trying to strike a balance in his response. Too far to one side would cause more harm to the other side.

Trump has been spared many tough decisions because of the voluntary cancellation of sporting events, concerts, and schools, among other things. And Governors and Mayors have been making the shelter-in-place calls to respond to their unique geographic conditions. Would Bernie have let these stakeholders make their own decisions or would he have made it for them? We'll never know, and we'll never know what the impact (positive and negative) would have been. But that is the only direction Bernie would have gone. He certainly would not have ordered everything to stay open. Maybe leaning more to the health side would be better in the long run. Again, we will never know what an alternate path would give us, but a person who leans as far to one side as Bernie does would not make a good crisis leader, IMO. At least not in this one.

I disagree on leadership, honesty, and intellectual curiosity alone. Besides, Bernie would be dealing with the (hopefully) the aftermath and recovery. There are long term consequences to this that will be felt by the working class especially for years and also include a further entrenchment of power. That’s concerning.

But I get what you’re saying regarding state leaders rising up. That’s not a bad thing. I just think the system would prevent a wild swing to socialism even IF that’s what Bernie was after.

The aftermath consideration is part of the current decision making, IMHO.
The bottom line is that a good crisis leader, when there are two opposing paths of response, is a person that would not favor, or disfavor, one side or the other to any significant degree. I think Bernie has some pre-existing conditions that would prevent him from being a good leader for this crisis.

[GannonFan]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. My point is that this crisis has three stressed components: Health, economy, financial system. The Federal Reserve is responsible for the financial system and they have responded in record time. Far quicker than during the crisis in '08-'09. That leaves health and economy for elected officials. Bernie is too one-sided to believe he would be focused on trying to strike a balance in his response. Too far to one side would cause more harm to the other side.

Trump has been spared many tough decisions because of the voluntary cancellation of sporting events, concerts, and schools, among other things. And Governors and Mayors have been making the shelter-in-place calls to respond to their unique geographic conditions. Would Bernie have let these stakeholders make their own decisions or would he have made it for them? We'll never know, and we'll never know what the impact (positive and negative) would have been. But that is the only direction Bernie would have gone. He certainly would not have ordered everything to stay open. Maybe leaning more to the health side would be better in the long run. Again, we will never know what an alternate path would give us, but a person who leans as far to one side as Bernie does would not make a good crisis leader, IMO. At least not in this one.

I disagree on leadership, honesty, and intellectual curiosity alone. Besides, Bernie would be dealing with the (hopefully) the aftermath and recovery. There are long term consequences to this that will be felt by the working class especially for years and also include a further entrenchment of power. That’s concerning.

But I get what you’re saying regarding state leaders rising up. That’s not a bad thing. I just think the system would prevent a wild swing to socialism even IF that’s what Bernie was after.

Not only would the "system" prevent a wild swing, it just wouldn't happen. He'd just be the President, that's not a dictator position. Heck, Bernie couldn't get people that worked with him in Congress to go along with his ideas, why would he be better able to make that happen from the Oval Office? The Presidency would just give him a bigger loudspeaker to talk from - I don't think many people think he'd be able to accomplish very much change even if he did win.

[kalm]

I disagree on leadership, honesty, and intellectual curiosity alone. Besides, Bernie would be dealing with the (hopefully) the aftermath and recovery. There are long term consequences to this that will be felt by the working class especially for years and also include a further entrenchment of power. That’s concerning.

But I get what you’re saying regarding state leaders rising up. That’s not a bad thing. I just think the system would prevent a wild swing to socialism even IF that’s what Bernie was after.

The aftermath consideration is part of the current decision making, IMHO.
The bottom line is that a good crisis leader, when there are two opposing paths of response, is a person that would not favor, or disfavor, one side or the other to any significant degree. I think Bernie has some pre-existing conditions that would prevent him from being a good leader for this crisis.

No.

There is no two sides if you fail to address the health/safety issues first.

[GannonFan]

The aftermath consideration is part of the current decision making, IMHO.
The bottom line is that a good crisis leader, when there are two opposing paths of response, is a person that would not favor, or disfavor, one side or the other to any significant degree. I think Bernie has some pre-existing conditions that would prevent him from being a good leader for this crisis.

No.

There is no two sides if you fail to address the health/safety issues first.

You. Can. Do. Both.

[CAA Flagship]

The aftermath consideration is part of the current decision making, IMHO.
The bottom line is that a good crisis leader, when there are two opposing paths of response, is a person that would not favor, or disfavor, one side or the other to any significant degree. I think Bernie has some pre-existing conditions that would prevent him from being a good leader for this crisis.

No.

There is no two sides if you fail to address the health/safety issues first.

You aren't understanding this. We are talking in-crisis management.

There are two sides.
1. Keep everything open. Don't close/cancel anything.
2. Close everything. Do not allow intercity/interstate travel nationwide. Gov't will let you know when you can peek your head out of the house.

[UNI88]

The aftermath consideration is part of the current decision making, IMHO.
The bottom line is that a good crisis leader, when there are two opposing paths of response, is a person that would not favor, or disfavor, one side or the other to any significant degree. I think Bernie has some pre-existing conditions that would prevent him from being a good leader for this crisis.

No.

There is no two sides if you fail to address the health/safety issues first.

Yes the health/safety issues need to be addressed first but can you go too far in addressing them? What are the ramifications if you do? Is Bernie someone whose disdain for the private sector would make him more likely to go too far?

I've been clear that I don't like Bernie but I do like and respect the fact that he hasn't gone after Biden during the primary. He wants to stay on message and not go negative and that shows class and integrity.

[kalm]

No.

There is no two sides if you fail to address the health/safety issues first.

You aren't understanding this. We are talking in-crisis management.

There are two sides.
1. Keep everything open. Don't close/cancel anything.
2. Close everything. Do not allow intercity/interstate travel nationwide. Gov't will let you know when you can peek your head out of the house.

See Ganny’s post above yours.

It’s a matter of degrees. Governors and their staffs are privy to the same scientific information. The disease strikes differently depending on factors like population density, cultural practices, demographics, etc, as well as at different times. Available healthcare infrastructure is also a huge factor.

[kalm]

No.

There is no two sides if you fail to address the health/safety issues first.

Yes the health/safety issues need to be addressed first but can you go too far in addressing them? What are the ramifications if you do? Is Bernie someone whose disdain for the private sector would make him more likely to go too far?

I've been clear that I don't like Bernie but I do like and respect the fact that he hasn't gone after Biden during the primary. He wants to stay on message and not go negative and that shows class and integrity.

Fair enough. Too far depends on your health and tolerance for economic downturns.

It’s all a risk. It’s a pickle.

[CAA Flagship]

No.

There is no two sides if you fail to address the health/safety issues first.

Yes the health/safety issues need to be addressed first but can you go too far in addressing them? What are the ramifications if you do? Is Bernie someone whose disdain for the private sector would make him more likely to go too far?

I've been clear that I don't like Bernie but I do like and respect the fact that he hasn't gone after Biden during the primary. He wants to stay on message and not go negative and that shows class and integrity.

This guy ^^^ gets it.

I'm not picking on Bernie only. He's just an example. Anyone who leans too far to one side or the other would not be good at making split-second decisions today that will affect the country tomorrow, next week, next month, and so on.

Trump would be someone that leans toward the economic side. But fortunately there were a lot of closure decisions that were made by others. And he has not challenged any. This kept him in the middle thus far.