Sounds like a terrible idea. Was there ever any proof that Samsung's foldable phones took off better than expected? It's Apple, so quality is probably going to be OK, but personally... I am good with a regular phone. Foldable feels a bit gimmicky to me.
Also, two different sources for this story from what I can tell. Digitimes and The Information, but since both are hard paywalls, this can probably stay up.
It’s for the best. The man is not in his best form and he has repeatedly shown that he isn’t. He attempted to rectify the situation since the debate but even those attempts fell short.
Seems totally reasonable: I am confident in my ability to do this job now, but I'm less sure I'll be able to do it three or four years from now, so I will be seeing out this contract and won't sign a new one with you. A perfectly normal thing most working people do in their 60s.
He's still competent enough to be president. He just doesn't have the chops to skewer a lunatic in a live TV debate, which is unfortunately very important, because if he can't, the lunatic might be the next president.
Yes, his decision making is sound, and comes with a huge weight of experience and understanding of how the world works. His ability to communicate effectively has diminished, but not his ability to assess facts and make effective determinations.
Isn't Biden pretty good at getting out of the way and letting experts make the decisions? That seems like a pretty valuable trait in a leader assuming the advisors are high quality and that you're not in a time of crisis and need a strong leader (e.g. war).
Disagree. The debate showed that his communication abilities are nearly gone, but his mind behind them is intact, just slower than it was.
Which is a really unfortunate position for him to be in. It can't be pleasant. He's not suitable to lead the country for another four years for sure. The country needs a leader who inspires people, and no one on that debate stage was that.
He is clearly not competent enough to be president. He is, arguably, barely competent enough to be a ventriloquist's dummy at this point, which is effectively what he is. We just don't know who the ventriloquist is.
Does anyone believe that he should have his finger on "the button" controlling thousands of nuclear weapons? If you were in charge of a boomer or a Minuteman III silos and you got a launch order purportedly from Biden, would you execute that order? If so, really? If not, what deterrent is currently in place?
If that's the situation, then he's not the president and should either step down or be replaced via mechanisms of the 25th Amendment.
He is not able to hold his own in a debate. Yet you believe he's strong enough to lead the nation and decide when to go to war or not?
Being president should take a high degree of intelligence, integrity, and awareness. At all times.
If Biden's age has been causing mental issues, fine. That'll happen to everybody. But if it's bad enough to stop him from running, it should be bad enough to keep him out of office.
> Being president should take a high degree of intelligence, integrity, and awareness. At all times.
You're basically saying a superhuman is the only thing that should be president. There doesn't exist a person that can navigate politics while having a high degree of intelligence, integrity, and awareness at all times.
> He is not able to hold his own in a debate. Yet you believe he's strong enough to lead the nation and decide when to go to war or not?
Because when he has to decide when to go to war or not, he's surrounded by a group of trusted advisors.
Damn, where are all the HN regulars who chant "How the fuck is a one hour pressure-cooker leetcode session relevant to someone's capability as a software engineer? We're measuring the wrong thing!" ...
* Also, are we just ignoring the context that Biden is stepping down because otherwise Trump might get elected? I know this forum is not a place to call for Trump's resignation, but I can practically taste the double standard today ...
And he also has to be able to make a decision at a moments notice.
When the alarm bells are flashing red in the nuclear bunker, do you want a half senile man deciding to press the button or not?
He's unsuited to be President for another four years. That doesn't mean he needs to step down right now. It just means he shouldn't run for re-election.
He’s clearly incapable of making any serious decisions. He refers to his defense secretary when he can’t remember his name as “the black man”. He thought a different woman was his wife a few days ago and tried to kiss her. He’s delusional about the current state of the race. He can’t even descend two steps unassisted.
He should have stepped down months ago, and the Democrat party is responsible for hiding this from the public. They really thought they could just shield him till after the election.
Why say "the Democrat Party"? The party's name is the Democratic Party. It feels like an attempted slight, but I don't get it, except that I know Donald Trump occasionally says this as well. Which I also don't get as an insult.
He purposefully said "Democrat Party" to publicly identify himself as a right wing Trump supporter. It's a childish right wing shibboleth. He wants you to know he's a Trump supporter who listens to and parrots Fox News and right-wing media and politicians word for word: that's exactly why he and Trump and other MAGA supporters say that, to "virtue signal" their support of Trump. It's just like wearing a bandage on your ear. Look at all the other words he wrote: he's just being a parrot, as a way of announcing his political bias. He's just a concern troll, not serious about what he says, pointedly making that mistake on purpose.
>Remember “Democrat party” is the key right wing shibboleth when describing the Democratic Party. You gave yourself away. There is no such party as the “Democrat” Party in America.
>A shibboleth (/ˈʃɪbəlɛθ, -ɪθ/ ⓘ;[1][2] Biblical Hebrew: שִׁבֹּלֶת, romanized: šībbōleṯ) is any custom or tradition, usually a choice of phrasing or even a single word, that distinguishes one group of people from another.[3][4][5] Shibboleths have been used throughout history in many societies as passwords, simple ways of self-identification, signaling loyalty and affinity, maintaining traditional segregation, or protecting from real or perceived threats.
It's telling that there's no attempt to refute the argument or examples that Biden is incapable of continuing to act as President or that the people around him have been lying to the public about it for months, if not longer.
Reminds me of the classic adage: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.
You loudly and clearly signaled to everyone that you are not arguing in good faith, so you certainly don't deserve a serious response. All you're doing is parroting ignorant uninformed right wing talking points and childish schoolyard bully epitaphs, and it's a complete waste of time taking you seriously, since you have absolutely nothing useful or interesting to contribute, you don't even believe you own words, and you know very well that it's called the "Democratic Party" yet you went out of your way to make that "mistake" on purpose, and you just parrot what you heard without any thought or evidence, so you've forfeit all rights to expecting a response or being taken seriously.
It's supremely ironic that a Trump supporter like you would get his panties in a twist about somebody other than Trump lying in public.
There’s a process for removing him if enough people in congress believed that it was an issue, but there’s no reason to do so at this point in the presidency. Even the Republicans aren’t likely to try that.
It does follow. The reason is if the president is cognitively incapable of leading the country. There's a good argument that Biden isn't competent enough to drive a car or work at home Depot. He makes gaffes every time he speaks and is rude and demeaning to people around him according to reports. It's pretty likely that he is effectively not the president right now, that his trusted senior advisers are actually running the country.
I'm not saying all of this is certain or that Biden should be removed, but it is certainly plausible, if not likely.
Trump just had a 90 minute off the cuff acceptance speech at their convention. I can show you the disagreements I would have I can’t show you any major gaffes.
If you want to split hairs and say that the verbal diarrhea that comes out of his mouth every time he opens it is not in itself one giant "gaffe," I guess I'll just concede the point and move on. He's still a giant asshole, always, to everyone, so my original point still stands.
And why was his acceptance speech so "off the cuff" if it was at an official function where he had months to prepare?
> you don’t ever consider that you are the one who was intentionally kept in the dark
There you go again, asserting that you know what's in my head. Please stop.
I've seen mentions of that catchphrase floating around. Based on the wording you used, I thought you were referring to her saying the word "broke" in some context, and I wasn't sure what you were talking about.
Perhaps you should work on your communication skills some more before acting so haughty?
As we age we do have a decline in mental and physical function, but it is generally not uniform. From the reports I've heard his speaking ability is down, but his analytical abilities are still fine.
| there’s no reason to do so at this point in the presidency
The man is still the Commander-in-Chief. Anyone of limited mental faculties (which clearly describes President Biden), irrespective of their politics, should not be in the chair if they are not of sound mind. Consequently, I believe the responsible act would be for President Biden to resign the Presidency and allow his Vice President to take the mantle.
| Even the Republicans aren’t likely to try that.
I actually don't think it's in the Republicans best interest to do so. Tactically, the Democrats would be wise to let Kamala Harris sit in the Oval Office and make her the nominee. It would legitimize her as both a nominee and a candidate. Given that isn't happening, the cynic in me believes that suggests the Democrats don't want her as their candidate.
Regardless, the political machinations are irrelevant. It is irresponsible for Joe Biden to continue as President given he is obviously unfit to continue as the nominee.
The thing is, there needs to be a Vice President to declare the winner of a Presidential election, as we all learned on Jan 6, 2021.
If Biden resigns and Harris becomes President, a new VP would need to be confirmed by the Senate, and the (GOP controlled) House.
What if the House refuses to take up the vote, similar to how McConnell refused to bring up Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court confirmation? In theory that kicks the election to the states, and each state counts as one vote, winner takes all.
I don’t think that’s a gamble the Democrats are willing to take, being that a majority of states (not a majority of the population) are GOP controlled.
The President pro tempore of the United States Senate (currently Patty Murray, D-WA) acts in place of the VP.
“The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.” Article 1, Section 3
A submarine launched nuclear missile takes about six minutes to hit its target. Presidents probably shouldn't even be permitted to drink alcohol during their time in office as responding to nuclear attacks is one of the major duties of office, even if one we hope they never have to perform.
I think you interpreted the parent as saying the president might be drunk & order an unprompted nuclear attack.
The parent was really saying that the president might need to respond to a nuclear attack at any time, therefore they should always be sober and ready to respond. Essentially, the president is oncall 24/7 for reacting to nuclear threats.
There are some protections though where the presidents orders can be disobeyed, which are mentioned in that Wikipedia article you linked.
> "What if [the president's] mind is deranged, disordered, even damagingly intoxicated? ... Can he launch despite displaying symptoms of imbalance? Is there anything to stop him?" Rosenbaum says that the answer is that launch would indeed be possible: to this day, the nuclear fail-safe protocols for executing commands are entirely concerned with the president's identity, not his sanity. The president alone authorizes a nuclear launch and the two-man rule does not apply to him.
Even if they didn't mean that, drunk or not, the US president has the sole authority, both legal and practical, to launch a nuclear strike.
Respectfully, you might want to read something more current on the subject. The excellent book Command and Control [1] is a good place to start.
The "protections" you appear to be alluding to presumably mean the "NCA"'s role in this. That's a term that has no official meaning since 2002 (and before that the president also had the sole authority to order nuclear strikes).
Don't forget, Saint Ronald I. was (allegedly) basically a potato in the latter year(s) of his presidency. So there's precedence, with such a situation.
Republicans would have to confirm a VP replacement, which they won't do. So even if he had to resign, he would be held hostage by Republicans because they would rather he lead the country badly than let someone else take over.
It’s completely possible that he’s fit for office now but realizing that he won’t be able to convince voters that he will remain fit for the next 4 years.
Not in his best form doesn't mean unfit for president.
But yeah, it might be better if he steps down, especially if the candidate will be Kamala Harris
