Social Top minds Joe Rogan and Bo Nickal making waves for their political hot take

[Jack V Savage]

A) I don't know if he has dementia or not. You are really arguing that watching someone who's in the spotlight as much as POTUS and saying "Whoa, it really looks like he's declining" is some outrageous thing to do LOL? Like, if I hear a car drive by that's making an awful noise my reaction should be "Well, I'm not a mechanic so I shouldn't even be thinking something might be wrong with that car..."
Biden looks to be declining significantly to me. That's not a medical diagnosis dude, it's an observation from an observer.

B) What clips? Sorry, I didn't make recordings of the umpteen times I've seen Joe on these outlets so I could catalog them for some future debate I might have on Sherdog about his mental capacity. And I honestly don't think it would matter. You've made up your mind that he's still sharp as ever, so anything you'd see you'd likely dismiss the way you dismiss him forgetting a colleague died.

C) Reacting the way I am? Why were those news stories written at all? The stories were literally about that and that alone. If it's so inconsequential, why would CNN, NBC, ABC, etc etc all run a story about it? The "some pol"...he remembered her name, was close enough to just call her by her first name. His press sec after kept claiming that Jackie was "top of mind" for Joe and that's why he did it. (Which makes no sense, but it's her claim). So which is it? Was she "just some random Pol from Indiana that he shouldn't be expected to remember her passing a month prior"? Or was she "top of mind" for Joe?

You seem to be having a really hard time being honest. Is he as sharp as ever? Probably not. Is he as sharp as Trump? Definitely more. Is he unfit to be president? There is zero evidence for that. And you insisting that the mainstream media was saying that him forgetting that someone died is proof of dementia appears to be a total fabrication.

Here's me earlier in this thread:

"You're also significantly moderating your view (from claiming he's more far gone than Trump and unfit to he's not as sharp as he used to be). If that's the claim--that the body of your observation suggests that he's not as sharp as he used to be--I think that's fine."

And then you keep insisting that my view is much more extreme. You also keep flipping your own view between crazy shit about him being demented and just that he's old and slowed down.

 

[emefer]

You don't need an entire press conference to see him try and shake hands with invisible people. Or are we all missing the "context" with that too?

They aren’t invisible people. They are stage ghosts. Trump jerks them off at his events.

 

[Jack V Savage]

They aren’t invisible people. They are stage ghosts. Trump jerks them off at his events.

Sounds like a reference to this:

Claims misconstrue a video clip of Biden after his speech

When President Joe Biden visited North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, the country’s largest histo

www.politifact.com

Again, it's just constant lies here. You'd think if there were a real case, people wouldn't have to make it with stuff like that, and the true believers should be mad at trickers for undermining their case.

 

[emefer]

Sounds like a reference to this:

Claims misconstrue a video clip of Biden after his speech

When President Joe Biden visited North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, the country’s largest histo

www.politifact.com

Again, it's just constant lies here. You'd think if there were a real case, people wouldn't have to make it with stuff like that, and the true believers should be mad at trickers for undermining their case.

Yep. I’ve tried to point that out to people but it doesn’t register. The program has already been written.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yep. I’ve tried to point that out to people but it doesn’t register. The program has already been written.

Apparently it's gaslighting to think that those types of misleading clips can influence anyone's perception. The only way not to gaslight is blind obedience to the party.

 

[mkess101]

You seem to be having a really hard time being honest. Is he as sharp as ever? Probably not. Is he as sharp as Trump? Definitely more. Is he unfit to be president? There is zero evidence for that. And you insisting that the mainstream media was saying that him forgetting that someone died is proof of dementia appears to be a total fabrication.

Here's me earlier in this thread:

"You're also significantly moderating your view (from claiming he's more far gone than Trump and unfit to he's not as sharp as he used to be). If that's the claim--that the body of your observation suggests that he's not as sharp as he used to be--I think that's fine."

And then you keep insisting that my view is much more extreme. You also keep flipping your own view between crazy shit about him being demented and just that he's old and slowed down.

"Declined significantly". That's been consistent throughout. And that it's POSSIBLE that he has some form of dementia. If you can quote where I made a medical diagnosis that he DOES have it, please do so. You won't be able to, because I didn't, but by all means try. You realize people age differently and someone can lose mental acuity to the point of not being fit for something even without a dementia or alzheimers diagnosis, yes?

Also please quote where I said that the media reporting on it (him forgetting the death of his colleague) was proof he was unfit. You're claiming I insisted this, show me where. I said them reporting it shows it's not inconsequential like you're claiming it is. Not that it's proof he's unfit. It's my own, armchair opinion based on what I've personally seen that's led me to think he should not be running again.

You made 2 utterly untrue claims about what I've said in this post. Then said it's ME that's having a hard time being honest. So, I guess here's your chance: quote me A) making a statement that he DOES have dementia and B) quote me saying that the press all reporting about him forgetting the death is proof he's unfit. These are YOUR claims about what I've said in a post where you stated I'm the one being dishonest. I didn't say either of those things, even once, throughout this exchange.

In fact, I'll even help you out. Look all the way back at post #272. I actually state that if I had to guess I'd say Joe does NOT have dementia, just wouldn't rule it out. My view is that it's more likely that he's just declined quickly with aging. So you stating I diagnosed him or whatever with dementia is a fabrication.

 

[Jack V Savage]

"Declined significantly". That's been consistent throughout. And that it's POSSIBLE that he has some form of dementia. If you can quote where I made a medical diagnosis that he DOES have it, please do so. You won't be able to, because I didn't, but by all means try. You realize people age differently and someone can lose mental acuity to the point of not being fit for something even without a dementia or alzheimers diagnosis, yes?

Also please quote where I said that the media reporting on it (him forgetting the death of his colleague) was proof he was unfit. You're claiming I insisted this, show me where. I said them reporting it shows it's not inconsequential like you're claiming it is. Not that it's proof he's unfit. It's my own, armchair opinion based on what I've personally seen that's led me to think he should not be running again.

You made 2 utterly untrue claims about what I've said in this post. Then said it's ME that's having a hard time being honest. So, I guess here's your chance: quote me A) making a statement that he DOES have dementia and B) quote me saying that the press all reporting about him forgetting the death is proof he's unfit. These are YOUR claims about what I've said in a post where you stated I'm the one being dishonest. I didn't say either of those things, even once, throughout this exchange.

In fact, I'll even help you out. Look all the way back at post #272. I actually state that if I had to guess I'd say Joe does NOT have dementia, just wouldn't rule it out. My view is that it's more likely that he's just declined quickly with aging. So you stating I diagnosed him or whatever with dementia is a fabrication.

That's an interesting response to being caught red-handed misrepresenting my position. You're also taking advantage of your own Motte and Bailey game here. You want to make the claim that he's actually unfit for office and severely declined but you only want to defend the claim that he's not quite what he used to be.

And in a side discussion, you've been denying that misleadingly edited clips (like the one suggesting he was shaking hands with a ghost rather than gesturing at the audience as you can see with a better angle) don't influence your view. That's the point of you saying that MSM sources are backing you up, which is another claim you aren't defending but making through implication.

I think this would be better with more clarity. What does "unfit" mean to you? To me, Romney's platform was terrible for the country, and he did not have my support. But I would never describe him as unfit for office. I just didn't agree with him about policy and philosophy. But Trump is someone who I would think should be disqualified even if I agreed with him on policy because of his corruption, incompetence, and mental issues (not just that he doesn't know what's going on--though that's really bad--but that he has no self-control). He's unfit. I'm taking you to be saying that Biden is similar--which implies a very severe mental decline (which is what Republican propaganda has been trying to push and which I think honest people would agree is ridiculous).

 

[mkess101]

That's an interesting response to being caught red-handed misrepresenting my position. You're also taking advantage of your own Motte and Bailey game here. You want to make the claim that he's actually unfit for office and severely declined but you only want to defend the claim that he's not quite what he used to be.

And in a side discussion, you've been denying that misleadingly edited clips (like the one suggesting he was shaking hands with a ghost rather than gesturing at the audience as you can see with a better angle) don't influence your view. That's the point of you saying that MSM sources are backing you up, which is another claim you aren't defending but making through implication.

I think this would be better with more clarity. What does "unfit" mean to you? To me, Romney's platform was terrible for the country, and he did not have my support. But I would never describe him as unfit for office. I just didn't agree with him about policy and philosophy. But Trump is someone who I would think should be disqualified even if I agreed with him on policy because of his corruption, incompetence, and mental issues (not just that he doesn't know what's going on--though that's really bad--but that he has no self-control). He's unfit. I'm taking you to be saying that Biden is similar--which implies a very severe mental decline (which is what Republican propaganda has been trying to push and which I think honest people would agree is ridiculous).

Wait. You made two specific claims about what I said. I asked you to point out where I said them. In this reply, you've completely ignored that. Why?

Edit: but you know what, as a show of good faith I'll at least address your first paragraph (this is more than you did when I asked you to show where I said what you claimed).

A random citizen like me making an armchair analysis of whether a president should decline to run for re-election due to mental decline is SUBJECTIVE. "Defending" that view is merely the things I've already said: "he seems out of it, slow, forgot a colleague died a month prior, etc". You don't have to agree those mean he's unfit. I'm giving my own view from the outside. There's no smoking gun, it's a citizen looking at his prez and saying " that dude is going downhill fast, he shouldn't run again." That's it. You want it so badly to be something so much more, but that's all it is.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Wait. You made two specific claims about what I said. I asked you to point out where I said them. In this reply, you've completely ignored that. Why?

I think if you read my whole post, it should be clear. You're playing games with implications and equivocating (for example, you were saying that your interpretation is just coming from the MSM, but now you're denying that and insisting on a direct quote). I think that's also why you refused my request for clarity.

 

[mkess101]

I think if you read my whole post, it should be clear. You're playing games with implications and equivocating. I think that's also why you refused my request for clarity.

No, I'm not. Read my edit.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Sounds like a reference to this:

Claims misconstrue a video clip of Biden after his speech

When President Joe Biden visited North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, the country’s largest histo

www.politifact.com

Again, it's just constant lies here. You'd think if there were a real case, people wouldn't have to make it with stuff like that, and the true believers should be mad at trickers for undermining their case.

FFS, yeah politifact says so.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Edit: but you know what, as a show of good faith I'll at least address your first paragraph (this is more than you did when I asked you to show where I said what you claimed).

A random citizen like me making an armchair analysis of whether a president should decline to run for re-election due to mental decline is SUBJECTIVE. "Defending" that view is merely the things I've already said: "he seems out of it, slow, forgot a colleague died a month prior, etc". You don't have to agree those mean he's unfit. I'm giving my own view from the outside. There's no smoking gun, it's a citizen looking at his prez and saying " that dude is going downhill fast, he shouldn't run again." That's it. You want it so badly to be something so much more, but that's all it isis.

Any person can say anything, of course, but if you care about saying and believing true things, you should want to defend your claims.

As I noted, there are branches to this too. You seem offended by my belief that your view is driven by a propaganda campaign. Along those lines, you are saying that the information you get comes from sources not involved in that. But I don't think that's true. As I said, I have not seen any mainstream sources suggest that him forgetting that an Indiana politician died is proof of some kind of mental issue as opposed to just an embarrassing mistake that can happen to anyone. And the only other specific thing you mentioned was him talking slow. There are clips that suggest more, but they are invariably misleadingly edited. You're not acknowledging the role in your perception, but I have trouble believing that they don't play one.

 

[Jack V Savage]

FFS, yeah politifact says so.

Yeah, if you've seen the other angle, you can also pick up what's happening there. I would think if you're a true believer in the smear, you'd be upset about how your claims keep getting undermined by those kinds of sleazy tactics. And I think the fact that you aren't says you're not, that it's just more partisan mud-slinging.

 

[mkess101]

I think if you read my whole post, it should be clear. You're playing games with implications and equivocating (for example, you were saying that your interpretation is just coming from the MSM, but now you're denying that and insisting on a direct quote). I think that's also why you refused my request for clarity.

Also, my "interpretation" of what is coming from MSM? I asked for a direct quote SPECIFICALLY in regards to me stating them reporting about him forgetting the death meant they deemed him unfit. That's all, because you said I'd stated that as my view. I didn't even IMPLY it. Again, I said it meant they weren't dismissive of it like you are. NOT that it was THEM deeming him unfit.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Yeah, if you've seen the other angle, you can also pick up what's happening there. I would think if you're a true believer in the smear, you'd be upset about how your claims keep getting undermined by those kinds of sleazy tactics. And I think the fact that you aren't says you're not, that it's just more partisan mud-slinging.

Its just partisan mud slinging. Sure, sure.




This one is a good one. Dr Jill tugs on his jacket and says "look at me" to save the confused old man.

 

[Natural Order]

American Tribal Politics 2024: Arguing which geriatric, incompetent candidate is slightly less incompetent.

Sad, Jack!

 

[mkess101]

Any person can say anything, of course, but if you care about saying and believing true things, you should want to defend your claims.

As I noted, there are branches to this too. You seem offended by my belief that your view is driven by a propaganda campaign. Along those lines, you are saying that the information you get comes from sources not involved in that. But I don't think that's true. As I said, I have not seen any mainstream sources suggest that him forgetting that an Indiana politician died is proof of some kind of mental issue as opposed to just an embarrassing mistake that can happen to anyone. And the only other specific thing you mentioned was him talking slow. There are clips that suggest more, but they are invariably misleadingly edited. You're not acknowledging the role in your perception, but I have trouble believing that they don't play one.

I mean, I don't love that someone wants to attribute influences to me that don't exist, no. But you're also free to believe whatever you want.

Why would those mainstream sources start suggesting mental decline as the cause for him forgetting his colleague died? Aren't they news sources? Isn't MSNBC, in a news story, just supposed to report what's happened and let people decide for themselves what it means? You're saying because none of their people editorialized to give commentary that matches my view that...what?

Let me ask you: have you ever seen an old person driving and they're going way too slow given traffic, don't signal to change lanes or even seem to look if other cars are there, and handling the vehicle seems like just too much? I have, and right then and there I might say to myself "that person shouldn't be driving anymore". Now, do I have a ton of info about them? No. Might they just be having a bad day? They're preoccupied with something else and it's affecting their driving on that day? Yep, possible. But that doesn't make it some egregious thing for me to make a quick judgement based on what I saw. It's snatural, we all do it.
Here, where much more info is available...you seem to think me using my own eyes, ears, and brain to make a judgment can't possibly be on the up and up because it doesn't synch with your view.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Also, my "interpretation" of what is coming from MSM? I asked for a direct quote SPECIFICALLY in regards to me stating them reporting about him forgetting the death meant they deemed him unfit. That's all, because you said I'd stated that as my view. I didn't even IMPLY it. Again, I said it meant they weren't dismissive of it like you are. NOT that it was THEM deeming him unfit.

You keep implying that the clips come from the MSM, and saying that the stuff Holmes is posting has no impact on your view. Why is it me arguing with him about that and not you? If you really think he's unfit, don't those tactics undermine the really important case? If the claim is true, why do partisans feel they have to fake it to convince people?

 

[mkess101]

You keep implying that the clips come from the MSM, and saying that the stuff Holmes is posting has no impact on your view. Why is it me arguing with him about that and not you? If you really think he's unfit, don't those tactics undermine the really important case? If the claim is true, why do partisans feel they have to fake it to convince people?

I haven't even clicked on those. I'm telling you what I've seen has come from MSM. Why would I argue with him?

And why are you ignoring my actual reply to spin this in another direction?

I'll ask again: why claim that I even IMPLIED the MSM running that story meant they thought Joe unfit? You said that about me.

You want to champion honesty, start here. You know full well I didn't claim it or even hint at it. I said then reporting it meant they deemed it important enough for the American people to know about, that's all.

Was that just a mistake on your part? You misread what I typed? I hope so...

 

[Jack V Savage]

I haven't even clicked on those. I'm telling you what I've seen has come from MSM. Why would I argue with him?

And why are you ignoring my actual reply to spin this in another direction?

I'll ask again: why claim that I even IMPLIED the MSM running that story meant they thought Joe unfit? You said that about me.

Because you did? I pointed out the propaganda campaign, and you said that I suggested the MSM was part of it. I clarified that I didn't say that, and I'm not seeing your interpretation coming out of non-partisan sources.

You want to champion honesty, start here. You know full well I didn't claim it or even hint at it. I said then reporting it meant they deemed it important enough for the American people to know about, that's all.

Was that just a mistake on your part? You misread what I typed? I hope so...

I think you're playing games here too. And I'll again note that you seem totally OK with the obvious fake/misleading stuff that Holmes posts. I think you're aiming for more seriousness, but you see that stuff as playing a valuable role. Like Tucker and the Flat Earthers.