The 81-year-old Biden is the oldest person to hold the presidency. His age and cognitive fitness have become major issues in his campaign for a second term, both in the minds of voters and in attacks on him by Republicans. The White House and top aides said he remains a sharp and vigorous leader.

Some who have worked with him, however, including Democrats and some who have known him back to his time as vice president, described a president who appears slower now, someone who has both good moments and bad ones.

For much of his career, Biden enjoyed a reputation on Capitol Hill for being a master negotiator of legislative deals, known for his detailed knowledge of issues and insights into the other side’s motivations and needs—and for hitting his stride when the pressure was on. Over the past year, though, with Republicans in control of the House, that reputation has diminished.

White House officials dismissed many of the accounts from those who have met with the president or been briefed on those meetings as motivated by partisan politics.

“Congressional Republicans, foreign leaders and nonpartisan national-security experts have made clear in their own words that President Biden is a savvy and effective leader who has a deep record of legislative accomplishment,” said White House spokesman Andrew Bates. “Now, in 2024, House Republicans are making false claims as a political tactic that flatly contradict previous statements made by themselves and their colleagues.”

This article is based on interviews with more than 45 people over several months. The interviews were with Republicans and Democrats who either participated in meetings with Biden or were briefed on them contemporaneously, including administration officials and other Democrats who found no fault in the president’s handling of the meetings. Most of those who said Biden performed poorly were Republicans, but some Democrats said that he showed his age in several of the exchanges.

The White House kept close tabs on some of The Wall Street Journal’s interviews with Democratic lawmakers. After the offices of several Democrats shared with the White House either a recording of an interview or details about what was asked, some of those lawmakers spoke to the Journal a second time and once again emphasized Biden’s strengths.

“They just, you know, said that I should give you a call back,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, a New York Democrat, referring to the White House.

Bates, the White House spokesman, said: “We thought it was important that all perspectives be represented” to correct what he said were “false and politically motivated claims.”

Voter perceptions about the mental acuity of both candidates are being shaped partly by footage and news coverage of their public slips.

On May 20, during a Rose Garden event celebrating Jewish American Heritage month, Biden said one of the U.S. hostages held in Gaza was a guest at the White House event, before correcting himself. One day earlier, at a campaign event in Detroit, he indicated that he was vice president during the Covid-19 pandemic, which started three years after he left that office. It was one of numerous flubs in the single speech that prompted the White House to make corrections to the official transcript.

In January, he mixed up two of his Hispanic cabinet secretaries, Alejandro Mayorkas and Xavier Becerra. During a February fundraiser in New York, he recounted speaking to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl—who died in 2017—at the 2021 Group of Seven meeting. That same month, at a different fundraiser, he said that during the 2021 G-7 summit he had spoken to former French President François Mitterrand, who died in 1996.

In a March Wall Street Journal survey of voters in seven battleground states, just 28% said Biden was better suited physically and mentally for the presidency, while 48% picked Trump.

Questions about Biden’s age were amplified in February when Special Counsel Robert K. Hur, who interviewed him for roughly five hours over two days in October during the probe into his handling of classified documents, reported that Biden’s memory had been “significantly limited.” Biden responded in a news conference: “I know what the hell I’m doing.”

Americans have had minimal opportunities to see Biden in unscripted moments. By the end of April, he had given fewer interviews and press conferences than any of his recent predecessors, according to data collected by Martha Joynt Kumar, an emeritus professor at Towson University. His last wide-ranging town-hall-style meeting with an independent news outlet was in October 2021.

He has had fewer small meetings with lawmakers as his term has gone on, visitor logs show. During his first year in office, even with pandemic restrictions, he held more than three dozen meetings of fewer than 20 lawmakers in the West Wing. That number fell to roughly two dozen in his second year, and about a dozen in his third year.

Jan. 17, 2024: Ukraine Meeting
With Ukraine running out of munitions, the White House called together top lawmakers to discuss what it would take to get congressional funding, along with the scope of border-security changes demanded by Republicans. The president moved so slowly around the Cabinet Room to greet the nearly two dozen congressional leaders that it took about 10 minutes for the meeting to begin, some people who attended recalled.

Biden started the meeting reading from notes to make broad points about the need to give money to Ukraine, which struck several participants as odd given that the lawmakers present already generally agreed that more funds were needed. Some attendees had trouble hearing him.

Biden deferred so frequently to other lawmakers that much of the conversation didn’t include him, some people who attended the meeting recalled. When questions came directly to him, he would turn to staffers, they said.

“You couldn’t be there and not feel uncomfortable,” said one person who attended. “I’ll just say that.”

Feb. 27, 2024: Biden and Johnson
Just after a late-February meeting of House and Senate leaders about military assistance to Ukraine, Biden pulled aside Johnson for a chat about funding and what it would take to bring the matter to a House vote.

Johnson brought up a new administration energy policy that halts future permits for shipping LNG to many countries, including in Europe, while the climate, economic and national-security impact of those exports are studied. The policy fanned concern that the ban would scuttle new projects and ultimately force U.S. allies to import more from energy-rich adversaries like Russia. The policy also affects several multibillion-dollar projects in Johnson’s home state of Louisiana by denying them, for now, key export permits.

“Mr. President, you are helping Vladimir Putin,” Johnson told the president, according to one of the people briefed on the exchange. Biden said that wasn’t true, and that the new policy was only a study, according to several people familiar with Johnson’s version of what happened. Johnson was dismayed that Biden appeared to have forgotten details of his own policies, they said.

No new Energy Department permits for exporting LNG have been issued since the pause was announced.

Senior White House officials disputed assertions that Biden doesn’t understand his policies or appears disengaged, saying he has been sharp when dealing with crises and pushing through his legislative priorities.

On May 21 of last year, 11 days away from a possible default, Biden called McCarthy from Air Force One on his way back from a summit meeting in Japan to discuss the negotiations. “On that phone call, he was more with it than any other time,” McCarthy said. Biden told stories about the other foreign leaders at the conference and referenced how the debt-ceiling talks could impact various members of Congress politically, according to people familiar with it.

When McCarthy and other lawmakers met with the president the next day, McCarthy said, Biden lacked the spontaneity he had projected on the plane. “He was going back to all the old stuff that had been done for a long time,” McCarthy said. “And he was shocked when I’d say: ‘No, Mr. President. We talked about that meetings ago. We are done with that.’”

Administration officials said that during a negotiation it is not unusual for the White House to reassert its original position at various points.

The president spoke so softly and with such little enunciation that attendees said they struggled to hear what he was saying. He told the same story more than once about his experiences with the DuPont company during his time as a Delaware senator.

negotiators drove away from the White House, they called a colleague to update him on the talks, according to someone familiar with the call. One topic of discussion: the president and his acuity.

this is what dems want. unelected behind the scenes faggots running shit. its how biden's cabinet was handled too. mayor faggot isn't making any decisions. all of the cabinet positions are filled by blacks and women and faggots for diversity points while jews, unconfirmed by the senate are running the departments

Ok cool now do the breakdown for Trump who turns 78 next week and drinks 12 diet cokes every day

>>1301704
Maybe you should ask WSJ for that, because they seem to think biden's senility is more notable than trumps

>>1301714
The readership of the Journal wasn't going to vote for Biden anyway. They're preaching to the choir. The nation would be better served to do an honest journalistic comparison of the fuckups of the two aging boomers instead of presenting only one side.

>>1301716
>The readership of the Journal wasn't going to vote for Biden anyway
Well yeah, libshits don't read factual journalism

>>1301716
It did mention trump closing his eyes in trial that one time. It's pretty honest, biden's just way more senile. If you don't think so, that's cool too, but you are in the small minority of people with that opinion

>>1301726
You know as well as I do Trump has been declining, maybe not as much as Biden, but to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

>>1301724
t. Lachlan Murdoch

>>1301714
WSJ is a Fox News lite paper, you really think they'd bad mouth Trump?

>>1301726
republicans voted reagan in and he had full blown alzheimer's, so complaining about biden feels disingenuous

>>1301732
Did you learn how to whatabout from Soviet Russia or some other communist dictatorship?

>>1301734
calling out dishonesty is whataboutism?

>>1301691
every single biden voter and democrat politicans deserves the death penalty, prove me wrong you literally cant

>>1301735
You are being dishonest.
Bringing up a president from 50 years ago that you didn't like when you were in college is pure whataboutism and absolutely unrelated to the current topic at hand.

>>1301737
what's dishonest about my point? if your argument is that republicans will choose a candidate based on his mental vigor, why did they choose an alzheimer's patient, and why do they still consider him a top tier republican president. it's completely on topic

>>1301741
Old man, I'm making the point that you're bringing up something from your childhood.
Most people who voted for Reagan are likely dead by now.

If you really want to use your comparison, Biden is pretty much Reagan mentally.

>>1301742
biden doesn't have alzheimer's, so no, he's not

>>1301743
And after googling, Regen didn't get Alzheimers until 5 years after he left office.
So you're not just using a whatabout based on ancient boomerisms, but you're lying as well

>>1301745
https://www.history.com/news/reagan-health-25th-amendment
yet his own aides were so concerned they almost had him constitutionally removed

>>1301745
and his own son argues that he had it during his presidency
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/17/ronald-reagan-alzheimers-president-son

>>1301754
>>1301752
Wow boomer, that made you so upset you rage posted as saged?
Biden's been suggested by many people to be removed under the 25th amendment

Literally all your convincing me of is that Biden and Reagan have a lot in common in terms of senility.

How does that make you feel?

>>1301756
>Biden's been suggested by many people to be removed under the 25th amendment
his political opponents, yes. not his own staff members that he appointed, or his own son. so no, they don't really have that much in common

>>1301757
>"My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered," Ron Reagan writes.
This is literally what WSJ is reporting white House aids as saying about Biden.

>>1301757
Yeah I just found the section. Wh aids say basically the same thing about Biden right now
>The president moved so slowly around the Cabinet Room to greet the nearly two dozen congressional leaders that it took about 10 minutes for the meeting to begin, some people who attended recalled.

>Biden started the meeting reading from notes to make broad points about the need to give money to Ukraine, which struck several participants as odd given that the lawmakers present already generally agreed that more funds were needed. Some attendees had trouble hearing him.

>Biden deferred so frequently to other lawmakers that much of the conversation didn’t include him, some people who attended the meeting recalled. When questions came directly to him, he would turn to staffers, they said.

>“You couldn’t be there and not feel uncomfortable,” said one person who attended. “I’ll just say that.”

>>1301758
>White House officials dismissed many of the accounts from those who have met with the president or been briefed on those meetings as motivated by partisan politics.
direct quote from the article. and either way my original point was that you only care about his mental decline because he's a democrat, while praising reagan for being a literal alzheimer's patient, who started to mentally decline rapidly before his second term even started

>>1301760
>you only care about his mental decline because he's a democrat
No, you retard. I care about his mental decline because he's president.

Conversely, you *don't* care about his mental decline because he's Democrat and you feel the need to whatabout some president from your college years 50 years ago that you've convinced me is mentally as bad as Biden

>>1301760
>while praising reagan for being a literal alzheimer's patient
Holy fuck it's like you can't even read.
I don't give a shit about Reagan. I wasn't around for him, I don't care, I'm not obsessed with dead 70s politicians like you are.

I've told you 4 times now, all you've done is convince me that Regen is mentally similar to Biden, which I promise you is not praising.


Retard. Learn to read.

>>1301762
you can keep pretending republicans don't think reagan is one of the greatest modern politicians but we all know the truth. why do you think the evangelical vote is still popular to this day

>>1301765
>you can keep pretending republicans don't think reagan
Wow you really can't read can you?
Is that a pre-requisite for you job? Not reading what people say?
Must not pay well.

Or maybe you are purposefully misrepresenting what I say because you lack a argument after getting btfo repeatedly?

>>1301768
like i said, keep pretending. i know the truth

>>1301761
>Conversely, you *don't* care about his mental decline because he's Democrat
no it's concerning to me, i just think an old man who isn't a criminal is preferable to an old man who is. it's an understatement to say biden pales in comparison to someone like FDR

>>1301769
>i know the truth
You are legit insane.
>>1301769
>i just think an old man who isn't a criminal is preferable to an old man who is.
Great.
Next time make that argument instead of mentioning a long dead president from when you were in college.
I literally only ever hear my dad talk about Reagan

>>1301769
I will say though you did a great job convincing me that Reagan is as senile as Biden. It's kind of surprising how similar that excerpt was from Reagan's sons book is to what current wh staffers are saying

>>1301770
once again, reagan's presidency is still the blueprint for republicans to this day. you being uninformed isn't something to brag about

>>1301771
>Their father's mannerisms while in office – including stumbling over his words, his occasional falling asleep in public, his weak memory
remind us which presidential candidate just fell asleep at his own criminal proceedings. it wasn't biden

>>1301772
>reagan's presidency is still the blueprint for republicans to this day.
Is that why democrats are trying to elect someone as senile as Reagan?
Or are you now pivoting away from senility and talking about policy?

I'm trying to understand your argument, it's been all over the place

>>1301773
Nah, Biden fell asleep at important meetings according to his aids.

Tbqh, trump's juggling campaigning and courtrooms all over the US. I will defend the fact that most people would be exhausted doing all that. I mean that shit must be stressful AF.

>>1301775
a quick google shows that's false but good try

>>1301776
I see several articles reporting Biden "dozing off" at multiple different events.

Continue to lie tho.

>>1301776
Yeah keep lying
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/11/02/joe-biden-dozes-off-cop26-moos-pkg-vpx.cnn
Biden appears to doze off at climate summit
An aide woke up President Biden after he dozed off at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland. CNN's Jeanne Moos reports.

>>1301774
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority
>The Moral Majority was an American political organization and movement associated with the Christian right and the Republican Party in the United States. It was founded in 1979 by Baptist minister Jerry Falwell Sr. and associates, and dissolved in the late 1980s
Some issues for which the Moral Majority campaigned included:
>Promotion of traditional family values
>Opposition to media outlets accused of promoting an anti-family agenda
>Opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment
>Opposition to state recognition or acceptance of homosexual acts
>Prohibition of abortion, including in cases involving incest or rape
>Support for Christian prayers in schools
things haven't changed much in the republican party, have they

>>1301779
>>1301780
his head was up the whole time, who sleeps like that

>>1301781
Ah so your argument has pivoted away from senility and now onto policy. Not sure what policy has to do with the topic of someone being too old to serve but the strategy makes sense, considering all you did was prove that Reagan and Biden are roughly as senile as each other

>>1301785
Tell CNN they need to correct their article based upon your expert analysis

>>1301786
my argument this whole time has to do with reagan. this is proof that his policies are the same ones republicans today use, and they began with reagan

>>1301794
>my argument this whole time has to do with reagan
It was Reagan's senility you fired off with, shill-kun. Specifically you claimed he had Alzheimer's.
>this is proof that his policies are the same ones republicans today use
Yeah you did definitely did pivot to this argument 3 posts ago after proving Biden and Reagan are similar in terms of senility, as evidenced by Reagan's son making nearly identical claims to what current wh employees are saying, but I don't think is what you intended to do

>>1301794
DNC shillbot devs - please increase the chat history length you are passing to your LLMs. Your bot has forgotten it was arguing about senility and policy was never even mentioned until a few posts ago.

Thanks

>>1301795
you're ignoring the second half of my point, republicans consider reagan one of the greatest presidents ever, even though he was to my knowledge the most senile president ever as well. comparing their policies lends credence to that fact

>>1301799
>republicans consider reagan one of the greatest presidents ever
Due to policy, not due to allegations of Alzheimer's.
Most democrats don't even think Biden has good policy, they literally just vote for him because he's not trump.

>>1301806
Literally the most pro-labor president in a lifetime. Fuck off and die.

>>1301808
You can go ahead and polish his knob all you want for his policies.
All I'm saying is overall something like 2/3 of Americans don't feel that way, including somewhere around half of Democrats.

The point being, Biden doesn't even have the strong policy approval that you claim Reagan has, all he shares is the senility factor.

>>1301810
that was a different poster. my argument is that it's disingenuous to say you think mental decline is an issue and simultaneously promote the exact policies of the most senile president in history almost to a t

Lmao this thread is a gold mine. Some democrap is stamping his feet and all he did was prove biden's less fit for office than Reagan, which means a lot coming from a democrap

>>1301814
>>1301814
>an issue and simultaneously
Wow it's like you can't read either, retard.
Do no democrats read? Is it hard for them? >>1301762 >>1301768

Nobody gives a shit about Reagan in this thread except apparently you and your friend, and nobody has "praised his policies"
It must be convenient just making stuff up every time you get btfo

>>1301827
i see you don't want to engage with reality, that's fine. the rest of us will move on without you, since you'll never obtain the popular vote ever again

>>1301830
I see you've completely given up after being repeatedly and utterly btfo.

Go ahead and keep making up things people never said and I'll keep btfo'ing you, it's rather fun.

Fun fact, I'm voting for Biden because he is more pro Palestine than Trump would ever be, but that doesn't stop me from admitting he's a senile old fool with failing mental facilities.

Keep polishing that knob, faithful democrat sycophant

>>1301831
isn't that "reddit spacing" by your own terrible judgment, therefore i can disregard everything

Conservatives are shitting themselves
A news article about something from January that happened in a one on one meeting with Mike Johnson?
Literally scraping the barrel for anything, anything, to distract from Trump's felonys

>>1301741
He just told you why.

>>1301849
>he

>>1301835
This article is not only titled: Biden poops himself, but it is filled with democrats literally shitting themselves over the negative news

>>1301832
>therefore i can disregard everything
As democrats often do when they read anything contrary to their world view. Their brain melts, their eyeballs explode, and they shit rage. Like a bad Clive Barker novel.

>>1301741
>if your argument is that republicans will choose a candidate based on his mental vigor
Did anyone *actually* say that in this thread or are you a schizophrenic psychoposting it?
Post evidence that anyone in this thread claimed that Republicans vote based on mental vigor

>>1301856
>As democrats often do when they read anything contrary to their world view
Says the party of people that stormed the capitol and smeared shit on the walls because they were so ass mad about being told they lost the election.

>>1301858
Wow you're all over the place now. Even statistically and mathematically it appears to be fraudulent. How can you blame people for noticing this?

>>1301741
I'll take your silence to mean you imagined it in a manic fit of schizophrenia

>>1301862
>Is still bought into voter fraud conspiracies despite being debunked literally hundreds of times
The irony of you accusing anybody else's brain of melting when presented with evidence that contradicts their worldview is beyond fucking palpable.

>>1301866
I stated that mathematically and statistically it appears to be fraud, which is true.
Would you like a link to an analysis?

>>1301865
you responded to my post, not silence. and you ignored it

>>1301869
>He realized he did imagine it
Kek. Take your meds, retard.

>>1301868
>I stated that mathematically and statistically it appears to be fraud, which is true.
Its not. There isn't a single legitimate metric that even remotely supports the notion that the 2020 election was fraudulent. Every investigation, audit and inquiry has shown the exact opposite. You're completely bought into conspiracy theories that have been debunked for nearly 5 years at this point.

>Would you like a link to an analysis?
No. You made the claim therefore the burden of proof is on you. Additionally, I'm beyond uninterested in another voter fraud conspiracy debate. Its like debating flat earth. Its so blatantly, obviously, scientifically incorrect its barely even worth engaging.

>>1301871
>There isn't a single legitimate metric that even remotely supports the notion that the 2020 election was fraudulent.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3756988

>>1301870
this is supposed to mean something?

>>1301871
>Would you like a link to an analysis?
>No. You made the claim therefore the burden of proof is on you.
Lmao
You literally can't read you complete retard.
Your brain has melted and your eyeballs have exploded, just like I said happened to democrats when they read something they don't like.

>>1301871
Oh yeah, there's this famous one as well.
It has pictures. You probably like pictures more than words http://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020

>>1301875
>>1301874
>>1301872
wow, no proof

>>1301872
>https://www.hoover.org/research/comment-simple-test-extent-voterfraud-absentee-ballots-2020-presidentialelection

>In a recent paper, John Lott Jr. claims to find evidence of anti-Trump fraud in the absentee counting procedure in Fulton County, Georgia, and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Using Lott’s own data, we show that his claims are utterly baseless. Lott uses an unusual estimation strategy that suffers from a subtle but fundamental flaw:his conclusions about fraud in Fulton and Allegheny counties are entirely dependent on the completely arbitrary order in which pairs of precincts in other counties are entered in the dataset.

This was debunked 3 years ago. Try again.

>>1301874
>Your brain has melted and your eyeballs have exploded, just like I said happened to democrats when they read something they don't like.
This accusation coming from a voter fraud cultist is peak comedy.

>>1301875
This contains zero evidence of voter fraud. It doesn't even claim voter fraud. All it does is claim that 4 vote dumps for Joe Biden were "anomalous" because the vote updates for these 4 dumps don't follow the previously observed pattern. The conclusion itself doesn't even make a claim, it just says "intuitively, its weird that these anomalies occurred" which is the most dumbfuck non-scientific statement I've ever heard. Seethe more, voter fraud cultist. Your whole belief system is based on dogshit that could be debunked by a 8th grader.

>>1301876
>No proof
Since your ignoring the statistical analysis I posted, you should probably call it quits at this point. All you've done so far is stomp your feet and cry over things you've imagined people saying and ignored without addressing anything that contradicts your worldview.

You aren't even coherent at this point, it's pretty sad.

>>1301878
>. It doesn't even claim voter fraud
I didn't even claim voter fraud.
This is yet another thing you are imagining as part of your manic schizophrenic episode.
I claimed that given the mathematical and statistical analysis suggests fraud, that I don't claim people for believing it was fraud before any investigations had occurred.

Please re-read my posts with non-exploded eyeballs.

But please feel free to continue schizoposting, it's great making you look stupid at every turn.

>>1301879
>your

>>1301878
>It doesn't even claim voter fraud. All it does is claim that 4 vote dumps for Joe Biden were "anomalous" because the vote updates for these 4 dumps don't follow the previously observed pattern
0_o

>>1301878
>It doesn't even claim voter fraud. All it does is claim that 4 vote dumps for Joe Biden were "anomalous"
I'm literally laughing right now.
"Vote dump" what an odd choice of words lmao

>>1301882
>>1301883
nothing but vague gesturing after all these years? and still no proof?

>>1301884
How about you tell me more about these "anomalous vote dumps for Biden" that are totally normal lmao

>>1301885
you're supposed to be telling me, dummy

>>1301691
I am still voting for Joe Biden

>>1301878
Are you ehh physical or mental retard?

>>1301691
>White House closely monitored interviews with staff and lawmakers and repeatedly contacted WSJ after interviews to emphasize biden's strengths
Democrat propaganda

>>1301891
Are you Sidney Powell?

>>1301892
Reality is democrat propaganda now

>>1301893
Nice canned response. Take your L and go away

>>1301878
This guy fucks

>>1301895
How about instead you take your debunked election conspiracy theories and go back to 2020.

>>1301883
>I'm literally laughing right now.
Because you have no argument?

>"Vote dump" what an odd choice of words lmao
Still not an argument.

>>1301880
>I claimed that given the mathematical and statistical analysis suggests fraud
The analysis doesn't suggest fraud. The link you sent "suggests" that a handful of voter updates that it arbitrarily decided to highlight deviate from some established pattern of voter counts. That conclusion says absolutely nothing nor does it even attempt to connect vote updates to any accusations fraud. Even if it did "suggest" it, that's still not evidence. So if your argument is so weak that you aren't alleging voter fraud but rather that its "possible" then I have no clue why you'd even bother trying to add to the conversation. You're so spineless you can't even stand behind an affirmative claim.

>But please feel free to continue schizoposting, it's great making you look stupid at every turn
Imagine being a voter fraud cultist accusing other people of schizophrenia. I'm sure the irony of this is well beyond your understanding.

>>1301903
>Cope, the post
How does it feel to be btfo at literally every single turn?

Your sycophantry isn't a good look, you are way too determined to polish biden's knob

>>1301924
>No argument
I accept your concession

>>1301925
So, putting aside all of your extremely generic canned responses for a moment, I have a real question.

You see, I think this thread was pretty cool. It was posted and some boomer immediately started bitching about a long-dead president from his earlier years.
Best part is, in his impotent rage, he inadvertently proved that Biden is at least as senile as Reagan in his later years, completely undermining his entire argument.
I thought this was pretty hilarious, and since then, all I've seen are super generic canned responses, as if whoever is talking has hit the end of their script, so to speak, kinda like an NPC .

I find this pretty entertaining, what about you?

>>1301933
chud headcanon is so wild

>>1301934
Ahh another generic canned response, I really did not see this coming.

Let me know when you have an updated script.

>>1301935
You realize you're talking to many different people, right? If not you should.

>>1301937
Reasonable enough.. are you the boomer who can't read that soiled his depends griping about a dead president, or a different boomer?

>>1301940
see >>1301934

>>1301933
weird concession but ok

I see the DNC isn't sending their best.

>>1301981
are you a member of the Dumb /News/ Cunts too

>>1301981
Its unfair sending regular players against little leaguers.
Maybe you should go shill up the "Gun Ownership makes you more content with a small penis" thread that conservicunts are desperately misreading

>>1301983
No, I don't happen to be a member of a fictitious organization

>>1301984
Why do you have science? Do you think it's racist like you people think math is racist?

>>1302001
you don't have to be modest. you're clearly a dumb enough cunt to be a high ranking member

>>1302003
Take your L and move on if all you are going to do is project your schizophrenic ideations into reality

>>1302006
you're dumb enough to be a 33rd degree cunt

>>1302007
You sound upset

>>1302008
i hear projection is big in that club

>>1301933
>No argument
I accept your concession

>>1302017
You haven't had any arguments this entire thread, retard.
You lost this as soon as you started talking

>>1302017
Still with the extremely generic canned responses?
Do you need you diaper changed, boomer? Have you pooped yourself?

>>1302017
he lost the argument hours ago so he moved on to the part where he pretends he won

>>1302022
Whats your thoughts on 45 wh aids believing Biden is senile?

>>1302024
if he enacted your policies you wouldn't care. *sips cofveve

>>1302019
>You haven't had any arguments this entire thread, retard.
Here >>1301903, here >>1301871
and here >>1301878. You have no counter argument, therefore I accept your concession.

>>1302020
>No argument
I accept your concession

>>1302025
Ah avoiding the question! Interesting strategy

>>1302031
i already aired my thought about biden in this thread you're still upset about. better an old man who isn't a criminal than an old man who is

>>1302026
Wait ,your arguing about election fraud? This is about Biden being senile you old fool

>>1302024
>>1302031
NTA but I'll answer the question. I don't really care. Senile Biden is doing an infinitely better job leading and passing policy than Trump ever was - likely because he hired competent people to run his cabinet unlike Trump who literally fired and later angry Tweeting about almost everybody he worked with. It speaks volumes about the incompetence of Trump and the GOP that an apparently senile man in his 80's who has no clue whats going on is doing an infinitely better job than his predecessor.

>>1302035
Wow the first non-brainded post by a leftist in the entire thread.

I disagree tho. Real wages increased nearly every year under trump, theyve decreased nearly every year under Biden. Biden's policies that he can't remember regarding the energy industry, such as removing all federal subsidies from non-green directly contributed to inflation, ballooning fuel prices and causing a world wide inflation by squeezing the energy market. I don't think any president has the pleasure of being the driving force behind global inflation.

Trump literally dealt with a global pandemic originating in China and still got a vaccine out to the public within 9 months, while democrats rioted and looted the empty streets

>>1302038
dishonest/10

>>1302038
>>1302035
Not just that, but biden's record setting number of EOs his first month in office single handedly destroyed what degree of border security we had at the time, and ensued were the 3.5 (and counting) worse records on level, ever, for illegal immigration.

And he has the balls to break something completely, like immigration, and then use an executive order (under the same authority trump used for to block immigration) to parade himself around as fixing the very problem he caused amd ignored for 3 years.

Well, let's be honest. Biden doesn't parade himself around, that's the Democratic propaganda machine, like in op article how the White House reached out every every person interviewed by WSJ to present a propagandized version of Biden, different from how aides describe him

>>1302039
Yeah take the L and move on faggot. You're getting absolutely btfo with every post.

>>1302040
you're samefagging too obviously friendo

>>1302042
That is quite obviously me appending to my own post you literal retard.

I'm amazed you are even allowed to leave the house.

>>1302038
>I disagree tho. Real wages increased nearly every year under trump, theyve decreased nearly every year under Biden. Biden's policies that he can't remember regarding the energy industry, such as removing all federal subsidies from non-green directly contributed to inflation, ballooning fuel prices and causing a world wide inflation by squeezing the energy market
I think this is a common mistake made during economic analysis - you're confusing things that HAPPEN during a presidency with things that a president materially did. A president has almost no ability to impact global inflation. A president has almost no ability to impact global oil prices. These things are just economically, historically true, so I don't attribute things that happen during presidencies. The fact is Trump passed zero major pieces of legislation other than tax cuts. He failed to follow through on all of his major campaign promises. He lead almost exclusively through executive orders because he was incapable of bipartisan negotiation. Biden doesn't have that issue. Biden has passed several major pieces of legislation and almost all of them included some measure of GOP participation.

>Trump literally dealt with a global pandemic originating in China and still got a vaccine out to the public within 9 months, while democrats rioted and looted the empty streets
You're kind of purposefully mischaracterizing again. Operation warp speed was great but I have no clue why I'd measure the actions of a president to the actions of random rioters. My level of expectation for both parties isn't even remotely comparable.

>>1302044
it wasn't obvious, but thanks for letting us know you're on the spectrum

>>1302046
>A president has almost no ability to impact global inflation. A president has almost no ability to impact global oil prices.
This is bullshit and you know it. Saudi Arabia manipulates oil prices globally based on their domestic policy all the fkn time.
The US produces more crude oil, than any country, ever: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545
The president of the worlds largest oil producing country can affect global oil prices by enacting policy that disrupts that oil supply.

You claim this shit about saudis all the fucking time, and they produce less oil than the use you disingenuous faggot

>>1302040
Biden increased the number of apprehensions at the border by nearly 100% over Trump. He increased border security budget and continued Trump era executive orders of limiting immigration due to COVID precautions. Again, you're confusing things that happen versus what a president did. Additionally, he's trying to pass border legislation that Trump is blocking explicitly because he said he wants to run on immigration being bad. Aside from all of that, immigration isn't even in my top 3 issues I care about domestically. Healthcare, housing, drug epidemics, criminal justice reform. These are things I care 10 times more about and have 100 times larger impact on the day to day lives of Americans than immigration. Immigration, to me, is a distraction from more tangible issues - issues the Trump completely failed to address and at least Biden is trying to address. Trump passed no infrastructure package. He passed no "repeal and replace of Obamacare" like he promised. He did nothing about Medicare or Medicaid or the looming retirement age. He did nothing for housing. These are the things I focus on and the GOP has utterly failed.

>>1302048
>This is bullshit and you know it.
It isn't.

>Saudi Arabia manipulates oil prices globally based on their domestic policy all the fkn time.
OPEC has a massive impact on global oil prices, anon, but these are multi-country economic policies enacted on a market wide scale - not a singular leader like a U.S. president making decisions he has no mechanism to enforce. The Saudi government has almost unilateral control over their oil production and import/export. Biden has almost none - has has no ability to go to BP or Exxon and tell them how much oil they're allowed to drill for or refine. The two aren't even comparable.

>The president of the worlds largest oil producing country can affect global oil prices by enacting policy that disrupts that oil supply.
Hard disagree. Oil prices are 95% market forces and maybe 5% presidential power, at least in the U.S. Comparing the power of the U.S. president to king of Saudi Arabia is entire disanalgous. It doesn't even make sense to pretend like those two individuals serve the same function or have the same control over their economies.

>You claim this shit about saudis all the fucking time
You're arguing with someone who isn't in the room, anon.

>>1302049
>Aside from all of that, immigration isn't even in my top 3 issues I care about domestically. Healthcare, housing, drug epidemics, criminal justice reform.
Me neither, in pretty similar actually. I care about real wages, inflation, drug epidemics, homelessness and criminal justice. Granted, I believe illegal immigration does contribute to the homeless rate and drug abuse rate, because the super progressive city i live in is filled with hobos who appear to not be American, and I frequently read stories about foreign hobos being arrested as part of some large drug dealing bust.
Had a story at one point about police clearing a homeless camp and finding something like $150k in cash and ended up deporting a bunch of people.

Most of these things objectively have gotten much much worse under Biden. I don't believe he's doing a good job with any of this.

>>1302050
>Oil prices are 95% market forces and maybe 5% presidential power
The president removing all federal subsidies from a resource is a market forced caused by the president

>>1302067
>The president removing all federal subsidies from a resource is a market forced caused by the president
No, not really. Those subsidies had nothing do with their production abilities. The vast majority of all the money they saved from those tax breaks went back to stock buybacks.

>>1302057
>Most of these things objectively have gotten much much worse under Biden. I don't believe he's doing a good job with any of this.
Yeah, the part I think you're missing is that this all got worse under Trump too. Housing and drug overdoses and healthcare premiums weren't improving under Trump. Its all just gotten worse. We don't disagree on whether conditions have gotten worse - I just disagree that you can tie any of these trends that started before Biden to Biden's policies.

Good reporting by WSJ

>>1302094
>Those subsidies had nothing do with their production abilities.
Subsidies have nothing to do with production, they affect price.

Retard. Your argument is shit.

>>1302097
>Subsidies have nothing to do with production, they affect price.
The subsidies did not effect the price, no. Their ability to produce wasn't influenced by the subsidies nor was the demand for oil influenced by subsidies. No part of the market relationship between supply and demand was impacted by tax breaks for oil corporations. The entire reason why the subsidies were canceled in the first place was because oil companies were reporting record profits while simultaneously refusing to increase production to keep prices high.

>Retard. Your argument is shit.
Says the guy whose entire argument is name calling.

>>1302096
Agreed.
>>1302108
Hard disagree. Subsidies lower prices, and removing them raises prices. It's literally what we do with corn and other food staples, as well as oil until Brandon took office

>>1302108
>The entire reason why the subsidies were canceled in the first place was because oil companies were reporting record profits while simultaneously refusing to increase production to keep prices high.
This is also factually false. The subsides were ended Brandon's first month in office by an executive order, nearly a year before every other talking point you faithfully regurgitated

>>1302108
>No part of the market relationship between supply and demand was impacted by tax breaks for oil corporations
I'm assuming by "tax breaks" you mean subsidies, because that's what this chain of conversation is about. And it's like you just make shit up.
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/effects-subsidies-supply-demand-curve-33921.html

>>1302120
>>1302121
I didn't know this board had actual BigOIl shills

>>1302119
>Subsidies lower prices, and removing them raises prices
That's absolutely not true. It depends on the subsidies and on market conditions. There is no universal rule to subsidies. In the case of oil corporations and Biden's EOs, removing the subsidies did not cause a global energy price hike. That's objectively false and so incredibly reductive that the only way you could think that is if you've done absolutely no research into the topic.

>>1302121
>I'm assuming by "tax breaks" you mean subsidies, because that's what this chain of conversation is about. And it's like you just make shit up.
The fact that you think there's some universal rule to subsidies says to me you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Instituting subsidies doesn't ALWAYS make prices go down and removing them doesn't ALWAYS make prices go up. That's moronic. That's like a toddler's understanding of economics.

>It's literally what we do with corn and other food staples
Its a completely different situation. We do this to prevent food growers from going out of business when prices go down, anon. Oil companies weren't in danger of going out of business. It was the exact opposite. You have no clue what you're talking about.

>>1302120
>The subsides were ended Brandon's first month in office by an executive order, nearly a year before every other talking point you faithfully regurgitated
That's also incorrect. Biden's first month in office, January 2021, was well into the global supply crunch caused by COVID. Oil corporation revenues had just about doubled between 2020 and 2021 and it did the same from 2021 to 2022. There's no universe in which these federal subsidies were playing any role in helping oil companies keep costs down. They didn't want to keep costs down - which is exactly why they were refusing to increase production.

>>1302125
They're allegiant to anything that they think can make Biden look bad. They'll suck big oil dick if it'll own the libs.

>>1302127
The best thing is how they have the cognitive dissonance to accuse democrats of being beholden to globalist megacorporations in other threads while they're fellating globalist oil companies ITT.

>>1302126
>The subsides were ended Brandon's first month in office by an executive order, nearly a year before every other talking point you faithfully regurgitated
>That's also incorrect
Eat shit, lying shill
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/01/2021-02177/tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad
>>1302128
>>1302127
>>1302125
Nobody even said this was bad, only discussed the fact that this was a driver in inflation
So funny how you people get utterly destroyed by facts you can only go "hurr durr energy shill"

>>1302126
Pretty much this entire post is a complete lie and total cope.
Why do you post it?

>>1302206
Denying reality doesn't help your argument like you think it does

>>1302208
>Denying reality doesn't help your argument like you think it does
Says the Biden shill lmao

>>1302208
All that post is, is a bunch of uncited cope which was proven to be factually incorrect claiming that Biden never ended oil subsidies, which I proved to be factually incorrect and cited biden's own executive order.

You can stomp your feet all you want, all it does is reinforce the fact leftists are more prone to mental illness than the general population

>>1301704
Can you possibly conceive of the fact that many people are dismayed that their options for the 2024 presidency are a corrupt half-dead pedophile who shits his diapers or a corrupt half-dead pedophile with a spray tan who shits his diapers? Personally I've been praying they have a very heated debate and simultaneously drop dead from cardiac arrest

>>1302252
Honestly no, I live in a deep red state where people are either eager to vote for or against Trump, there are no undecideds. You are acting like this wasn't the same option we had last time. There isn't anything new to discover about the candidates and if people say they're still on the fence they're either lying or crazy.

>>1302252
Good post

>>1301692
>The 81-year-old Biden is the oldest person to hold the presidency.

It's ridiculous for Dems to claim that Biden is any kinda capable President, it's obvious to all that he's suffering from senior dementia if not out-right Alzheimers, he is nothing more then a (mumbling) mouth piece for the Democratic Party. It's embarrassing.

>>1302259
Still the better candidate

>>1302266
You can definitely think that, it is your right to have your own opinions.

Personally I'd rather have someone who didn't jump into office and sign a bunch of EOs that weakened border security and contributed to inflation, I can deal with the mean tweets, but that's just me

>>1302196
>https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/01/2021-02177/tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad
Nothing in this article address or refutes a single thing I said. This article says nothing about the impact of subsidies on energy prices.

>only discussed the fact that this was a driver in inflation
Ending federal oil subsidies did not drive inflation. You have absolutely zero evidence of this.

>>1302206
>Pretty much this entire post is a complete lie and total cope.
"Nuh uh" isn't an argument.

>>1302213
>proven to be factually incorrect claiming that Biden never ended oil subsidies
Nobody ever said Biden never ended oil subsidies. The argument specifically was that ending the subsidies did not cause global energy price spikes. You've completely pivoted away from the topic at hand because you know you have no argument.

>>1302299
>Nothing in this article address or refutes a single thing I said.
You said: "That's also incorrect" in reference to "The subsides were ended Brandon's first month in office by an executive order, nearly a year before every other talking point you faithfully regurgitated" right here >>1302126

You are wrong and that eo undeniably proves that you were wrong

You've been btfo yet again. Congrats.

>>1302292
The funniest part is how you think Trump didn't sign any EOs when he entered office which weakened border security and increased inflation. Man he's really good at convincing his cultists he dindu nuffin.
>>1302323
>You are wrong and that eo undeniably proves that you were wrong
lol it's off script again

>>1302329
Take the L and move on, at this point all you or your ilk has been doing is regurgitating talking points you can't back up with a single shred of evidence.

Not my fault you are uneducated

>>1302329
>The funniest part is how you think Trump didn't sign any EOs when he entered office which weakened border security and increased inflation
Cite these eo's. Present them, tell us why you think they resulted in what you claim and provide evidence of your wild claims

>>1302323
>You said: "That's also incorrect" in reference to "The subsides were ended Brandon's first month in office by an executive order, nearly a year before every other talking point you faithfully regurgitated" right here
My refutation to that argument is that oil companies were posting double the amount of profits an entire year before Biden ended their subsidies, therefore completely debunking this argument that oil companies needed those subsidies to keep prices down. That's completely wrong. They suffered zero impact to their production capabilities, zero impact to the demand of gas and the global supply crunch caused by COVID rendered the oil that was being transported exponentially more valuable due to the increase in shipping costs around the world. The subsidies had nothing to do with any of this.

>You are wrong and that eo undeniably proves that you were wrong
The link you posted doesn't address or refute a single thing I said. It contains zero information about the subsidies impact on global energy prices.

>>1302378
>My refutation to that argument is that oil companies were posting double the amount of profits an entire year before Biden ended their subsidies
Proof they had these record profits before Biden made the executive order his first month in office?
No?
Thought so.