“The President in particular is very much a figurehead — he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had — he has already spent two of his ten presidential years in prison for fraud.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
One of my favorite books, but depressing people were pointing shit out 50 years ago and society at large is still ignoring it today.
It’s obvious from this excerpt that Adams was mostly talking about British Prime Ministers, who are elected by the government and do not wield much (if any) power beyond that of being a figurehead. Of perhaps the Royalty, who aren’t elected but hold even less power and are even more of a distraction.
The US president, by contrast, is not elected by the government and has a shit-ton of power, and increasingly so as the US congress is less and less able to govern due to Republican infighting. The US president can start and win a foreign war in less time than it takes congress to even form an opinion on the matter.
Zaphod spent two years in prison for fraud, meanwhile the US president is protected by more military firepower than literal nukes and has a chain of succession longer than most Kings because the US government literally cannot function without a President.
Adams was mostly talking about British Prime Ministers, who are elected by the government and do not wield much (if any) power beyond that of being a figurehead
I’m not British so I might be off-base, but my understanding is that like other European parliamentary monarchies, the PM is the effective head-of-state but their title rests entirely on the good graces of the MPs who can (and often do) replace the PM.
Furthermore the Executive branch of government isn’t particularly powerful, unlike the US. Maybe I’m fundamentally misunderstanding things but I don’t often hear about a British PM spending billions or starting wars without parliamentary involvement, which US presidents regularly do even if they don’t enjoy a majority in Congress (which is not a situation that British PMs can find themselves in by definition).
Of course the UK has the problem of FPTP voting which leads to (quasi) bipartism which means the PM has a rather symbiotic relationship with over half of parliament, but it’s still a very different dynamic.
The King would be the figurehead you’re thinking of. The PM may seem at the behest of his MPs (or the MPs of parliament in general), but, as we saw with Boris (fucking) Johnson and David (oink) Cameron, they can whip MPs, expel them if they defy the whip, prorogue parliament, call referenda, and many other acts which allow them to do as they wish if they wield their power in the ‘right’ way. There are things which the PM can do outside of parliament, as with any leader of a country; this includes starting wars, appointing members of the cabinet (and other branches).
No, that’s the monarch (where it still exists) or the president in parliamentary democracies (not presidential democracies).
The PM is in fact the leader of government and relies on the good graces of the governing party or parties, not unlike the US president candidate effectively needs to unite his party behind him.
The difference is mostly the ability to get removed/replaced hy his party but usually no term limits, where presidents are term-limited and there are explicit regulations how the parliament can remove them (something that is already inhently given in parliamental systems where the government leader is selected via parliamental majority in the first place).
I think you brush over a detail too fast. The US president needs to unite his party… until the last ballot is cast. That very instant, this stops being true for four years. Combined with a powerful executive that keeps the president very powerful even without legislative support.
Of course by definition any democratic system has checks and balances and ultimately ends up being representative of the will people in some way, but my point is that British PMs are a lot closer to being “harmless distractions” such as Zaphod than US presidents (also Douglas Adams was English).
He was a favorite in the 1988 presidential primary because he was such a a great public speaker…
He got over his stutter when he was a child, and a stutter doesn’t make someone say something completely different than what they meant to. Hell, he wasn’t even doing it while Obama’s VP, and he was in his 70s then.
Stop pretending he just has a stutter, he’s 80 years old and he gets confused sometimes. It’ll happen to all of us if we’re lucky to live that long.
That doesn’t mean he’s still fit to be presidet, and he sure as shit isn’t the best option for a Dem candidate even if he is mentally fit for office.
He was a favorite in the 1988 presidential primary because he was such a a great public speaker
Were you alive back then? As I remember it, he was a perennial also-ran because he couldn’t help but stay stupid shit now and then. It’s as if the word “Gaffe” in politics was invented to describe stupid things Joe Biden said. And saying stuff like that stopped campaigns cold back then. (remember when Howard Dean’s campaign got killed over screaming the wrong way?)
But then Trump happened, and all of a sudden saying stupid shit all the time was no longer a liability.
I was alive and eligible to vote in 88 but I was a dumb kid that voted but didn’t pay attention to the primaries so I don’t remember him at all.
And he wasn’t a “great public speaker” in that he was known for saying dumb shit as you say. (If anything gaffe was a term that applied earlier to Dan Quayle, former VP).
I don’t recall for sure if the stutter was present then or to what degree.
I also don’t see a lot of evidence that he is mentally unfit (for his age) as far as I am aware.
I also don’t see a lot of evidence that he is mentally unfit (for his age) as far as I am aware.
Curious, have you even heard of his gaffes and other funny stuff (Corn Pop, pony soldier, trueananashabadapressure, falling, not knowing where to go after a speech)? There are so many funny moments from his speeches. People put together “best of” compilations on every video site. They don’t get reported on CNN and stuff, you do have to look for them.
The mental fitness stuff is exaggerated for the most part, but he does lose track of his line of thinking when speaking off the cuff, without a teleprompter. He will start reciting a story he’s told 1000x, then he just sighs and says, “anyways…”
I would say, as with Trump, to go to as original of a source as you can. Watch an hour long campaign really or whatever to hear the whole speech in context. Don’t just read a headline or synopsis from the media.
Were you alive back then? As I remember it, he was a perennial also-ran because he couldn’t help but stay stupid shit now and then
Actually, yeah.
But why does that matter? Sure, Biden is old, but his first presidential.primary isn’t ancient history, we don’t have to have actually seen it to know about it.
Biden was initially considered one of the potentially strongest candidates as campaigning began in 1987.[6] This was because of his image as a political moderate, his speaking ability on the stump (rated second only to that of Jesse Jackson), his appeal to Baby Boomers, his high-profile position as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, looming for the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, and his fundraising appeal—his $1.7 million raised in the first quarter of 1987 was more than any other candidate.[7][8] By the end of April he had raised $2 million, using not just contributions from Delaware but also establishing a base of support among young professionals and Jewish voters in a number of urban- and suburban-oriented states.[9] He had no campaign debt, and Fortune magazine termed his “most impressive start” a “surprise”.[9]
The only speaking difficulty Biden has had up till the last decade, has been when media press him on a challenge, he gets pissed and starts insulting them. The deathblow to the 88 campaign was when his speech plagiarism lead to reporters finding out he cheated in school and lied about being active in the civil rights movement.
He might have survived that, but he started insulting reporters when they asked. A pissed off presidential candidate yelling about how much better he is than the worker man sells a lot of newspapers and it’s a vicious cycle that’s hard to get out
He was still doing it last campaign, he’ll do it next time.
He was still doing it last campaign, he’ll do it next time.
No, he won’t do it this time because he isn’t going to campaign with the public. The instances he got angry with the public were pretty early in the primaries mostly. They won’t let that happen this time. It will be even smaller audiences than last run (heavily vetted people) or zoom speeches from the basement.
In 2020, his campaign had to stop scheduling evening events with Buden because he would start sundowning. He’s an 80 year old man who is clearly starting to show signs of his age.
I agree with you that he’s showing signs of his age, but isn’t it possible he simply gets tired by 8PM, and since hes the boss, he can simply say “Dont schedule me for late nights thst arent necessary”?
There’s a whole lot of daylight between that and “sundowning”.
My favorite part about all this is both sides just kind of ignoring that their candidate can’t string together a coherent sentence, gets confused a lot, and mistakes people for others all the time as if those aren’t signs of cognitive decline.
Cheers. Thank you for doing your part to ensure this never changes.
Here’s an excerpt from the very beginning of Biden’s speech two weeks ago:
In the winter of 1777, it was harsh and cold as the Continental Army marched to Valley Forge. General George Washington knew he faced the most daunting of tasks: to fight and win a war against the most powerful empire that existed in the world at the time.
His mission was clear. Liberty, not conquest. Freedom, not domination. National independence, not individual glory.
America made a vow. Never again would we bow down to a king.
And here’s an except from Trump’s speech from his most recent rally just a few days ago:
By the way, they never report the crowd on January 6. You know, Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley … did you know they destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, deleted and destroyed all of it? All of it, because of lots of things, like Nikki Haley is in charge of security, we offered her 10,000 people, soldiers, national guards, whatever they want. They turned it down.
Biden is old, just like Trump. Nobody denies that. But surely you aren’t trying to “both sides” this one by equating the two mentally or physically, right?
In the winter of 1777, it was harsh and cold as the Continental Army marched to Valley Forge. General George Washington knew he faced the most daunting of tasks: to fight and win a war against the most powerful empire that existed in the world at the time.
Wtf, is this gibberish even English?? /s
Sure feels like astroturfing going on around the campaign with all the people making completely bullshit claims like “both sides can’t string words together”. But maybe far more people talk out their asses than I realized lol.
Then maybe Trump should quit “riffing” until he can string a coherent sentence together.
Because Biden is over here giving solid speeches on how this moment reflects American history, while Trump is so completely confused (and, let’s face it, that’s being fucking generous) that he doesn’t even know that Nicky Haley (who worked in his cabinet and who is running against him as a Republican) isn’t Nancy Pelosi.
Am I cherry-picking? Has Trump said anything coherent in the last 12 months? On prompter or off. That’s a serious question by the way.
Time to face the facts, Biden may be a bit old and doddering, but Trump is now straight-up demented.
It’s no wonder he’s afraid to debate, because he seems to have barely any idea what’s even going on anymore. Why else do you think his handlers have him taking cognitive tests?
330 million people in the US and both parties are going to run a candidate who should, by rights, be considered medically unfit for office.
I hate it here.
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
One of my favorite books, but depressing people were pointing shit out 50 years ago and society at large is still ignoring it today.
It’s obvious from this excerpt that Adams was mostly talking about British Prime Ministers, who are elected by the government and do not wield much (if any) power beyond that of being a figurehead. Of perhaps the Royalty, who aren’t elected but hold even less power and are even more of a distraction.
The US president, by contrast, is not elected by the government and has a shit-ton of power, and increasingly so as the US congress is less and less able to govern due to Republican infighting. The US president can start and win a foreign war in less time than it takes congress to even form an opinion on the matter.
Zaphod spent two years in prison for fraud, meanwhile the US president is protected by more military firepower than literal nukes and has a chain of succession longer than most Kings because the US government literally cannot function without a President.
That’s not true though.
I’m not British so I might be off-base, but my understanding is that like other European parliamentary monarchies, the PM is the effective head-of-state but their title rests entirely on the good graces of the MPs who can (and often do) replace the PM.
Furthermore the Executive branch of government isn’t particularly powerful, unlike the US. Maybe I’m fundamentally misunderstanding things but I don’t often hear about a British PM spending billions or starting wars without parliamentary involvement, which US presidents regularly do even if they don’t enjoy a majority in Congress (which is not a situation that British PMs can find themselves in by definition).
Of course the UK has the problem of FPTP voting which leads to (quasi) bipartism which means the PM has a rather symbiotic relationship with over half of parliament, but it’s still a very different dynamic.
The King would be the figurehead you’re thinking of. The PM may seem at the behest of his MPs (or the MPs of parliament in general), but, as we saw with Boris (fucking) Johnson and David (oink) Cameron, they can whip MPs, expel them if they defy the whip, prorogue parliament, call referenda, and many other acts which allow them to do as they wish if they wield their power in the ‘right’ way. There are things which the PM can do outside of parliament, as with any leader of a country; this includes starting wars, appointing members of the cabinet (and other branches).
This does a decent job of explaining it:
https://theweek.com/100451/is-the-british-prime-minister-too-powerful
No, that’s the monarch (where it still exists) or the president in parliamentary democracies (not presidential democracies).
The PM is in fact the leader of government and relies on the good graces of the governing party or parties, not unlike the US president candidate effectively needs to unite his party behind him.
The difference is mostly the ability to get removed/replaced hy his party but usually no term limits, where presidents are term-limited and there are explicit regulations how the parliament can remove them (something that is already inhently given in parliamental systems where the government leader is selected via parliamental majority in the first place).
I think you brush over a detail too fast. The US president needs to unite his party… until the last ballot is cast. That very instant, this stops being true for four years. Combined with a powerful executive that keeps the president very powerful even without legislative support.
Of course by definition any democratic system has checks and balances and ultimately ends up being representative of the will people in some way, but my point is that British PMs are a lot closer to being “harmless distractions” such as Zaphod than US presidents (also Douglas Adams was English).
But then several books later we see the person who’s really in charge and he was great
Do you have any proof at all that Biden is mentally unfit, or are you just repeating what TikTok says?
All I see is that he’s old, his stutter has gotten worse, and he tripped over a sandbag once.
He was a favorite in the 1988 presidential primary because he was such a a great public speaker…
He got over his stutter when he was a child, and a stutter doesn’t make someone say something completely different than what they meant to. Hell, he wasn’t even doing it while Obama’s VP, and he was in his 70s then.
Stop pretending he just has a stutter, he’s 80 years old and he gets confused sometimes. It’ll happen to all of us if we’re lucky to live that long.
That doesn’t mean he’s still fit to be presidet, and he sure as shit isn’t the best option for a Dem candidate even if he is mentally fit for office.
Were you alive back then? As I remember it, he was a perennial also-ran because he couldn’t help but stay stupid shit now and then. It’s as if the word “Gaffe” in politics was invented to describe stupid things Joe Biden said. And saying stuff like that stopped campaigns cold back then. (remember when Howard Dean’s campaign got killed over screaming the wrong way?)
But then Trump happened, and all of a sudden saying stupid shit all the time was no longer a liability.
I was alive and eligible to vote in 88 but I was a dumb kid that voted but didn’t pay attention to the primaries so I don’t remember him at all.
And he wasn’t a “great public speaker” in that he was known for saying dumb shit as you say. (If anything gaffe was a term that applied earlier to Dan Quayle, former VP).
I don’t recall for sure if the stutter was present then or to what degree.
I also don’t see a lot of evidence that he is mentally unfit (for his age) as far as I am aware.
Curious, have you even heard of his gaffes and other funny stuff (Corn Pop, pony soldier, trueananashabadapressure, falling, not knowing where to go after a speech)? There are so many funny moments from his speeches. People put together “best of” compilations on every video site. They don’t get reported on CNN and stuff, you do have to look for them.
The mental fitness stuff is exaggerated for the most part, but he does lose track of his line of thinking when speaking off the cuff, without a teleprompter. He will start reciting a story he’s told 1000x, then he just sighs and says, “anyways…”
I would say, as with Trump, to go to as original of a source as you can. Watch an hour long campaign really or whatever to hear the whole speech in context. Don’t just read a headline or synopsis from the media.
Actually, yeah.
But why does that matter? Sure, Biden is old, but his first presidential.primary isn’t ancient history, we don’t have to have actually seen it to know about it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_1988_presidential_campaign
The only speaking difficulty Biden has had up till the last decade, has been when media press him on a challenge, he gets pissed and starts insulting them. The deathblow to the 88 campaign was when his speech plagiarism lead to reporters finding out he cheated in school and lied about being active in the civil rights movement.
He might have survived that, but he started insulting reporters when they asked. A pissed off presidential candidate yelling about how much better he is than the worker man sells a lot of newspapers and it’s a vicious cycle that’s hard to get out
He was still doing it last campaign, he’ll do it next time.
No, he won’t do it this time because he isn’t going to campaign with the public. The instances he got angry with the public were pretty early in the primaries mostly. They won’t let that happen this time. It will be even smaller audiences than last run (heavily vetted people) or zoom speeches from the basement.
In 2020, his campaign had to stop scheduling evening events with Buden because he would start sundowning. He’s an 80 year old man who is clearly starting to show signs of his age.
I agree with you that he’s showing signs of his age, but isn’t it possible he simply gets tired by 8PM, and since hes the boss, he can simply say “Dont schedule me for late nights thst arent necessary”?
There’s a whole lot of daylight between that and “sundowning”.
Shit am I unfit to be president since I get tired at 8pm too?
Sorry, you and me both and I’m a lot younger than Joe.
Source?
Edit: 1 day later. There is no source. Consensus wins. They pulled it from their ass.
His ass.
I could believe though of not having events past 8pm. Anyone with good sleep hygiene would do that though.
My favorite part about all this is both sides just kind of ignoring that their candidate can’t string together a coherent sentence, gets confused a lot, and mistakes people for others all the time as if those aren’t signs of cognitive decline.
Cheers. Thank you for doing your part to ensure this never changes.
Here’s an excerpt from the very beginning of Biden’s speech two weeks ago:
And here’s an except from Trump’s speech from his most recent rally just a few days ago:
Biden is old, just like Trump. Nobody denies that. But surely you aren’t trying to “both sides” this one by equating the two mentally or physically, right?
Wtf, is this gibberish even English?? /s
Sure feels like astroturfing going on around the campaign with all the people making completely bullshit claims like “both sides can’t string words together”. But maybe far more people talk out their asses than I realized lol.
Biden is playing the game and reading off a teleprompter, Trump is riffing
Therefore Trump sounds like the actual idiot that he is, and Biden is performing as expected of a president.
Not sure what your point is here beyond just playing yourself and shutting down your own argument.
Then maybe Trump should quit “riffing” until he can string a coherent sentence together.
Because Biden is over here giving solid speeches on how this moment reflects American history, while Trump is so completely confused (and, let’s face it, that’s being fucking generous) that he doesn’t even know that Nicky Haley (who worked in his cabinet and who is running against him as a Republican) isn’t Nancy Pelosi.
Am I cherry-picking? Has Trump said anything coherent in the last 12 months? On prompter or off. That’s a serious question by the way.
Time to face the facts, Biden may be a bit old and doddering, but Trump is now straight-up demented.
It’s no wonder he’s afraid to debate, because he seems to have barely any idea what’s even going on anymore. Why else do you think his handlers have him taking cognitive tests?
I don’t see anyone ignoring it. In fact, it appears to be all some folks can talk about.
Judging by the lack of a primary on the Democratic side and Trump winning in Iowa, I think it’s perfectly fair to say that people are ignoring it.
Judging by the fact you are commenting on a national article on the topic, I’d say you’re wrong, and people are doing the opposite of ignoring it.
I’ve already demonstrated why it’s silly that you think that way. Thank you for the discussion.
They’re ignoring it by writing every other article on it? Right. You sure “demonstrated my silliness.”
🙄
There’s always a pedant who’s willing to throw out straw men.
Have fun with that.