this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
472 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3054 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In what’s looking like one of the most bizarre choices of the 2024 election season, Republicans decided to make “mental acuity” a key issue in the presidential race – despite their likely candidate’s inability to form coherent thoughts anymore.

It’s hard to remember, but just a year ago conservatives’ attempts to paint President Joe Biden as a doddering old fool – and Trump as, at least, fairly competent – were just gaining traction. But that was before the GOP primary season started. It was before Trump was being forced to speak with local and, at times, unfriendly media. It was before more Americans were paying all that much attention to any of the campaigns.

Just last week, an ABC News/Ipsos poll showed that 28% of Americans believed that Biden has the mental sharpness necessary “to serve effectively as president.” 47% said that Trump had it. That is, perceptions of the mental sharpness of both candidates dropped since a similar poll was conducted in May 2023.

Biden, who has a lifelong stutter, has been the subject of numerous videos on social media that exploit the handicap to convince voters he is undergoing “cognitive decline.” While that attack was used in the 2020 election, it has intensified this past year as a result of a ruthless online campaign that used doctored videos to make it look like Biden sleeps during interviews or that he can’t say a single sentence coherently.

That is, someone who has watched terrible TikTok videos about Biden this past year might be genuinely surprised to watch him give a fairly normal speech without passing out 10 seconds into it.

top 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 126 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Nikki Haley said she would take a cognitive test along with Trump. Trump keeps bragging about how well he did on one. Jimmy Kimmel has "jokingly" said multiple times that they should get on TV and do it, but I agree seriously. Let's see Trump take a cognitive test. I want to see him identify the whale.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 93 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The purpose of those tests isn't even to test any general idea of "acuity". They're meant to monitor cognitive decline. With a good elder care GP, you start getting them regularly at 70.

You don't "ace" them. They aren't IQ tests or any shit like that. They don't measure your mind compared to anyone else's. The "best" result you should ever get is no change from baseline. They're compared to past performance. Anyone claiming to "ace" them just doesn't understand why they even took them.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 48 points 9 months ago

Given how Trump talks about his cognitive tests, I feel like explaining what the results of the test mean should be on the test

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The president is technically the head of the military, make them take the ASVAB.

[–] IgnatiusJReilly@lemmy.wtf 2 points 9 months ago

Outstanding, tacosanonymous! If it weren't such a waste of a fine enlisted man I'd recommend you for OCS! You are gonna be a general someday, tacosanonymous!

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"okay, what's in this picture?"

"Rosie O'Donnell"

"Uh, it's a whale. How about this one?"

"Rosie O'Donnell"

"This one is a stick, is that your answer for everything?"

"Rosie O'Donnell"

(And then the trump evolves into a Rosie O'Donnell)

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Fuck that.

Real IQ questions.

Love on TV.

Just humiliate him.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

If he will identify mirror as whale he will be correct

[–] Furedadmins@lemmy.world 73 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Who the fuck has watched or heard trump speak in the last decade and thinks he has any degree of mental sharpness

[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Letting my phones predictive text would sound more coherent than that clown.

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Fellow idiots.

[–] the_q@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

A bit less than half the US. Keep in mind those people are also dumber than shit.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

People who spend their *whole lives hating people that are different from them.

EDIT: autocorrected "whole" to "white". But that's not really wrong, is it?

[–] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 38 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's a deceitful headline. The text says only 28% believe Biden is mentally capable, but 47% think Trump is capable. So it seems like the tactic has worked fine, because a lot more people are trusting Trump than Biden.

[–] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What's underrepresented in those stats is that the vast majority of those that consider Trumpf "capable" are fucking morons themselves, and the rest are hateful cunts just looking for an excuse.

[–] Davel23@kbin.social 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately those cunts and morons vote every chance they get.

[–] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Of course they do. They're reverse cuckpuppets with daddy's fat dick so far down their burger holes they dance to his pulse.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There is a fine line between love and hate and I am riding that bitch SOOOOO hard after reading your comment.

[–] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

You're welcome for the indignant blush and reluctant shiver. The afterglow, however, is all you. ✨

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

For reference, the May 2023 poll had:

Just 32% overall think Biden has the mental sharpness it takes to serve effectively as president, down steeply from 51% when he was running for president three years ago," ABC's Gary Langer notes.

54% think Trump [...]

AKA both had roughly the exact same 14% relative drop from their numbers a little under a year ago in terms of confidence in their mental acuity.

Isn't the two party system wonderful? WTF. We're supposedly the world superpower and we're heading into deciding which person a majority of the country thinks doesn't have all the marbles to even run it effectively will run it?

Also from the May 2023 poll was that 58% of Democratic leaning adults wanted someone other than Biden to be running.

Quite the representative democracy we have going on here.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

This reminds me something. How long will it take to move to next stage?

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Just last week, an ABC News/Ipsos poll showed that 28% of Americans believed that Biden has the mental sharpness necessary “to serve effectively as president.” 47% said that Trump had it.

I guess the propaganda worked.

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Fucking braindead morons, how ironic

[–] buzz86us@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I would just like octogenarians to be off the presidential ticket, and a normal sane person that wants what most of the nation wants to be president. I swear the presidency has gone into corporate monkey paw mode.

[–] sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Imo you shouldn't be on the ballot once you've aged past the median life expectancy of the general population, or would do so during your tenure. You want to be president at 82? Fine. But the median life expectancy better be in the 90s.

[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Nah, it should be held to about 75 perpetually.

Eventually we'll be living to 150, or even become immortal, and I don't want some dude who was born centuries ago running anything.

They need to retire, and let the next generation run things, or we'll never advance.

[–] ME5SENGER_24@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The SSA considers the full retirement age to be 67. That should be the end for all politicians. If the SSA shifts that number, the max age of politicians should shift with it. But they should be directly related to each other

[–] CarrierLost@infosec.pub 5 points 9 months ago

Agree completely.

SSA retirement age should be the maximum age for a new term. If you hit 67 during a term, you cannot run for another.

SSA will likely be hesitant to shift that number at will, or risk drawing the ire of one of the largest voting blocks: retired persons.

[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Side note: I fully expect the SSA to decide that full retirement age is like ninety seven right about the time I'm sixty six.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ageism is so cool in home room. But, as adults, we do want to listen to people with experience to pick a decent set of advisors. If their goals are good - contrast Mr Biden vs Mr Trump - their staff will advise toward the proper ends.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What the hell are you talking about?

[–] qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 9 months ago

I think the gist is, both are capable of surrounding themselves with people who share their agenda


would you be comfortable with Biden's cabinet effectively running the white house? Trump's?

Not sure I parsed it correctly though...

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

You could grab a random American off the street and they'd likely be better than either option billion donors have chosen for us.

And we'd probably get far better turnout. Republicans only have a chance of winning when turnout is low.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

"Conservatives wanted ________. Now it's blowing up in their face."

Contender for most consistently applicable headline of the last century.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago

Just last week, an ABC News/Ipsos poll showed that 28% of Americans believed that Biden has the mental sharpness necessary “to serve effectively as president.” 47% said that Trump had it.

OK so it's a winning issue for Trump, in contrast to everything this article says.

I think the polled people are wrong and Biden is proven to have the necessary mental sharpness while Trump if he ever did only proved it 5+ years ago. But the numbers are what they are.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

I already knew this but we aren't gonna see these two debate. Both are old and can't handle the stretch, but the GOP wants to hide that fact about Trump just as much as they want to expose that about Biden.

[–] 52fighters@sopuli.xyz 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The debates will be hosted at Serenity Springs nursing home and will be sponsored by AARP and Geritol. Complimentary hearing aids and adult diapers will be provided to select audience members and the candidates themselves.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Fannie Mae will be dancing for tips on the main stage pole.

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

I got rolls of pennies I'd love to enthusiastically donate in the general direction of center mass.

[–] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Yeah, I've never gotten the "Biden is too old, let's elect a man four years younger than him" argument. Even if either isn't in mental decline, how's age a good argument in this case?

[–] TheJims@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Do…YOU have a certificate that exonerates you from having donkey brains, Dennis?

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

"Precedential Immulity!"

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

Is it though?

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

Didn't Trump in a speech actually challenge Nikki Haley to one? If I'm her, I'm calling his bluff and demanding that he actually does it. It's the best thing she could possibly do.