Why Biden is still the best Democrat candidate and didn’t lose the debate - needle hardly moved - only his speech impediment (a bit like Bush) - out of time to correct himself early in the debate
- and a raspy tired voice due to a cold
This is to help democrat supporters who panic about Biden’s stumbles in his first debate with Trump. He has a well known speech impediment, slightly stuttering and coming out with the wrong words more often than Trump. He is still the best candidate for the Democrats as we’ll see.
In this debate, he ran out of time several times after saying something he was clearly about to correct such as saying he'd beat medicare. It’s clear he never even thought that, he came out with the wrong words and people are making a big fuss about it.
Just because he got the timing wrong for that reply, tried to say too many things and was cut off before he could correct himself for the last thing he said.
He adapted by giving shorter answers later on so that he had time to correct himself if he made mistakes. He self-corrected many times in the debate and that’s normal for him.
It is a bit ridiculous to say that someone shouldn't be president because he has a speech-impediment and several times ran out of time before he could correct himself. It is not a normal situation for a president to be in.
Part of this is that Biden was doing his first debate in 4 years. No longer a senator so not even involved in Senate debates.
Biden hasn't lost the debate. Once the dust settles, I think NPR summarizes it best saying it might not move the needle much if at all. It won't move it much because Biden is against Trump and Trump has numerous handicaps which he didn't answer well in the debate, at least not for undecided voters. E.g. on accepting the results of the election and Jan 06.
Also Biden has had a solid first term achieving many things - his main talent is to work across the aisle and to bring together the left and moderates of his party and few others in the Democrat party could do that as well as that or have his decades of experience and his relationships talking to world leaders for decades. So can't see them replacing him he has the incumbent advantage, that he can point to things he actually did.
NPR SUMMARY - THIS DEBATE MIGHT NOT MOVE THE NEEDLE MUCH IF AT ALL
QUOTE STARTS
4. This debate might not move the needle much, if at all.
Despite Biden’s struggles, which will understandably get the headlines, Trump had some difficult moments, too, especially in the second half of the debate.
In addition to spreading myriad falsehoods,
he did little to credibly defend his conduct on and before the Jan. 6 siege on the Capitol;
he used the kind of hyperbolic and vituperative language that has long turned off swing voters; and
showed why many are concerned about some of his positions on the issues, especially on abortion and
how the U.S. should be represented on the world stage.
So despite Biden’s shortcomings, millions will still likely vote for Biden, anyway, because he’s not Trump.
The bottom line is: Americans have said they are unhappy with their choices, and, in this – the biggest moment of the 2024 presidential campaign yet — it was clear why.
. presidential-debate-analysis-trump-biden
[split up into bullet points to help autistic readers]
BIDEN’S IMPRESSION OF A POOR PERFORMANCE BECAUSE OF A SPEECH IMPEDIMENT AND SLOWER AT REACTING AS A SENIOR CITIZEN - NOT COGNITIVE DECLINE
Biden's poor performance wasn't due to any cognitive decline. He is slower thinking than a younger man, less alert but that's just normal for a senior citizen - and you don't need quick reactions in a president.
It was mainly that he tried to say too much in the two minutes early on. He could have completed his sections if it weren't for his speech impediment, he'd likely prepared replies and learnt them but then he glitched and didn't allow time to correct himself and a couple of times ended his section on a glitch, e.g. talking about beating medicare which can't be what he was thinking. Just a verbal glitch and if he'd had a few seconds he'd have corrected himself but ended that section on a glitch.
BIDEN ALREADY ADAPTED DURING THE DEBATE AND CAN ADAPT MORE FOR THE NEXT DEBATE IN SEPTEMBER
Later on he gave shorter answers, and then had more time to correct himself if he glitched, and if not he had extra time after finishing his answer and I tink that's the main reason he was seen as ending stronger than he began.
He will have that experience for the next debate and so is not likely to do those glitches again. He had already adapted to the format by half way through it.
It is about whether you go by what they said or the impression you get from verbal stumbles.
Biden got many good points across. He is elderly and has a speech impediment. But Americans have elected president with speech impediments before as with Bush junior.
He had a cold, was clearly a bit tired, the glitches were because of him running out of time with a speech impediment and not having enough time to correct what he said because of the cut out format
BOTH CANDIDATES ROSE TO BAITS FROM THE OTHER CANDIDATE LOSING VALUABLE MINUTES.
After Biden adapted to the debate format, it went well except for the baiting. e.g. about veterans knowing that his son was a veteran, and about his son's criminal charges and then about golf handicaps and various other things.
Biden did baiting in the other direction too of course. It happened both ways. Trump lost valuable time too responding to issues Biden raised before about a different question from the one he was asked.
Both sides spoke too long in their replies to those things. So Biden often spoke defensively rather than going for Trump's weaknesses on those very topics - or the golf handicaps just a distraction that took up valuable time
Both sides will learn from all that for the second debate which is the more important one. I don't expect the Democrats to either change the presidential candidate or cancel the second debate.
BOTH CANDIDATE SET OUT MOST OF THEIR MOST IMPORTANT CAMPAIGN POINTS - BUT MANY THINGS FAILED FACT CHECK - WITH NO REAL TIME FACT CHECKING THIS TIME
And both candidates set out most of their most important points for their campaigns for the campaigns to build on.
Both candidates also said many things that failed fact check. This debate didn’t have real time fact checking.
Some of the fact checks miss out nuances and important qualifications.
Here are some good fact checks that are detailed and not one sided. These are the best I found:
Associated Press FACT FOCUS: Here's a look at some of the false claims made during Biden and Trump's first debate
Politifact 2024 presidential debate: Fact-checks of Biden and Trump
Washington post: /fact-check-presidential-debate/
IT IS ABOUT WHETHER AMERICAN VOTERS CARE MORE ABOUT THE SHOW OR THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT WAS SAID - AND EXAMPLE OF OBAMA’S FIRST DEBATE AGAINST MITT ROMNEY
It's about whether Biden’s stumbles matter more to American voters than the substance of what he said.
He certainly could have done a better job of answering questions about his age and he would prepare better for the next debate.
Obama's first debate against Mitt Romney was a bit of a disaster for him and he went on to win.
QUOTE (From 2012) Obama, who has spent most of the past four years speaking to hand-picked interviewers or lecturing audiences required to remain mostly mute while he spoke, struggled to shake off the rust in a jostling debate environment that gave his opponent Mitt Romney parity, equal time — and a new lease on political life.
GAVIN NEWSOM ON HOW BIDEN HAS A STRONG RECORD OF WHAT HE DID IN OFFICE
I can't see the Democrats replacing him, and that would be a big mistake in my view. The incumbent has a strong advantage and Biden has a strong record of what he actually did in office.
I think California Governor Gavin N Newsom put it well:
QUOTE STARTS
Earlier this week, I wrote about how voters' concerns about Biden and Trump's age were hanging over this debate.
In the spin room just now, I asked California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is considered part of a newer generation of Democratic leaders, about what Biden could do to win over these voters tonight.
"What he continues to do, and that's deliver," Newsom said.
"It's about ideas, it's about values, it's about principles, and its not about age. That's time of life. It's about state of mind," he said.
Panic engulfs Democrats after Biden's stumbling debate performance
Can't see this making a significant difference and expect after a day or two to reflect that the Democrats will likely largely follow Governor Newsom's line.
A new Democrat candidate would be an unknown and there is nobody really to replace him. Kamala Harris wouldn't do well. Newsom might but clearly doesn't want to and he couldn't point to Biden's record and claim any responsibility for it. Biden’s record has been very good.
BIDEN’S BIG ADVANTAGES - ABILITY TO LISTEN TO ADVISORS - WORK ACROSS THE AISLE AND ACROSS TEH POLITICAL SPECTRUM - AND DECADES OF EXPERIENCE WITH WORLD LEADERS
Biden's big advantage is his ability to listen to his advisories carefully and to work across the aisle, as well as bring together Democrats across the full range from liberal left to moderates like Joe Manchin. He used this many times for instance it would be hard for any president to get the Ukraine bill through the divided House and his administration did it. Similarly for the Inflation Reduction act, without which the US wouldn’t have a net zero policy today. Biden got it through by getting a consensus from Joe Manchin all the way to Bernie Sanders.
This is what’s needed to pass legislation today in the rather divisive house and Biden got many of his manifesto pledges passed in Congress.
While Trump is divisive and causes many problems for the Republican party. He has a very poor track record of getting legislation passed in Congress to back up his manifesto pledges. He never got any legislation passed to back up the Trump wall. So Trump relied mainly on executive orders and Biden could just reverse most of those in his first few days in office.
Newsom just doesn't have the experience of decades in the Senate and of talking to world leaders that Biden has.
Biden has lots of advantages and he didn't show them well in this debate but he can learn from it for the more important second debate in September and delivered lots of sound bites for the Democrats to use.
ADVANTAGE OF LIFE EXPERIENCE FOR OLDER PEOPLE - EXAMPLE OF THE QUEEN OF THE UK AND SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
Older people have a lot of life experience and that can be a benefit. Depending on the job they do, and what type of experience.
As an example in the UK the prime ministers had weekly chats with our Queen - and they greatly valued her decades of experience and talking to previous prime ministers back and back. Right through to when she died at 96, ,nobody here said she should have abdicated, she remained sharp witted and with a sense of humour and a memory going back to before WW2, born in 1926, That means she was around 13 when the war started.
Being old doesn't mean you lose your ability to reason. We see this with the Supreme Court justices, people often have many other complaints about them but nobody says they are senile, they have very sharp and clear minds and typically do all the way until they die.
A president doesn't need the precise thinking of a Supreme Court Justice. They need other skills.
Biden is noted for
his ability to work across the aisle.
his ability for empathy.
Different presidents have different strong points, those are some of his.
He doesn't have the charisma of Obama or Trump., he has a different type of leadership which is not so much about him, it's about delegating a lot, listening more.
Just to give an idea of how varied leadership styles can be, here is a list of 13 types of leadership.
This is an analysis of different leadership styles of four past presidents.
. The U.S. President: Leadership Styles in American Politics - Issuu
Biden outsources a lot of his thinking but has his own personal stamp on things too.
It would be too limiting to say a president has to be young. It depends on the situation but above all on the individual - and what is needed for a particular situation.
It's about whether that person is a match for the situation they find themselves in.
REAGEN’S BAD DAY IN HIS FIRST DEBATE AGAINST MONDALE IN 1984 AND HIS JOKE IN THE SECOND DEBATE “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
Reagen got laughs in his second debate when he joked:
“I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
Reagen and the Age issue: YouTubeIn context:
FULL TRANSCRIPTMr Trewhitt your question to President Reagan
Mr President I want to raise an issue that I think has been lurking out there for two or three weeks and cast it specifically in National Security terms.
You already are the oldest president in history and some of your staff say you were tired after your most recent encounter with Mr Mondale I recall that President Kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the Cuba Missile Crisis is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances
Not at all Mr Trewhitt. I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
If I still have time I might add that it was Seneca or it was Cicero I don't know which that said if it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young there would be no State
--------------
VIDEO DESCRIPTION:
Here was that hilarious moment when Ronald Reagan, with one line, ended the 1984 presidential election contest.
Ronald Reagan had done poorly in the previous debate. In his final summation he stumbled badly and did not finish in time and had to cut it short, incomplete. Reagan had been a professional speaker for many years and understood timing and had practiced for hours. It was inconceivable that he would mess up his answer.
The only explanation for the lapse was his age and growing heart condition which would account for less blood flow to the brain. It was a startling thought for the nation.
Reagan consulted with his wife, Nancy Reagan, and campaign team, including Michael Deaver, and he brought back Jim Baker to help. But alone, without help from his aides, he thought through the problem and rightly concluded that humor was the one antidote that would remedy the problem.
Reagan rehearsed his answer thoroughly and when the issue came up, as he knew it would, he calmly delivered his lines. It was a great moment, perhaps the greatest in presidential debate history.
Humor trumps content. Laughter is the best medicine. This was the classic moment of Reagan and the age issue.
. Reagan and the age issue
At the time Reagan was 73 and his opponent Mondale was 56.
According to WikiQuotes (Cicero - Wikiquote), his quote may be a loose paraphrase of Cicero's account of what Cato the Elder said
If, then, he had lived to his hundredth year, would he be repenting of his old age? No, for he would not be employing his time in running and in leaping, or in long-distance throwing of the spear, or in hand-to-hand sword-play, but he would be engaged in using reflection, reason, and judgement. If these mental qualities were not characteristic of old men our fathers would not have called their highest deliberative body the “senate.” Among the Lacedaemonians, for example, those who fill their chief magistracies are called “elders,” as they are in fact.
And indeed, if you care to read or hear foreign history, you will find that the greatest states have been overthrown by the young and sustained and restored by the old.
… rashness is the product of the budding-time of youth, prudence of the harvest-time of age.
Reagen went on to win of course.
Actually Reagen did develop Alzheimers' disease, diagnosed in 1994, and died of it in 2004, and he may have had early stages in 1984 a decade earlier a study here suggesting he may have had the early signs.
So he may also be an example of a president who lead the US very effectively while in early stages of Alzheimers.
But Biden is just elderly and has no signs of Alzhemiers.
DEBATE HAD MINUTE EFFECTS ON VOTING INTENTION EVEN IMMEDIATELY AFTER, WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR
The reputable website / organization 538 with IPSOS who are very reliable did a poll before and after the debate asking the same people and found almost no change in voting intention.
Voting intention is what really matters not their performance rating on which president looked most confident etc.
If someone thinks Biden had a bad night, which most agree, and if they think Trump "won" the debate - which perhaps 2 in 3 agree - this does NOT mean they will vote for Trump.
It's not like a game of sports, it's not about who is best at scoring points in a debate. Voters vote according to who they want as president.
Just as they won't vote for Trump for being probably significantly better at golf than Biden, they won't vote for Trump at being moderately good instead of poor at finishing his sentences in time for a 2 minute time out in a debate or whether Biden looked tired and had a raspy voice when talking.
Those are reasons for them to answer saying he gave a worse performance than Trump. But that is not what you vote for a president to do, to give a good performance in a single debate.
538 did a poll before and after the debate. They found a 1.7% change down for Biden, in voting intention, a 0.4% increase up for Trump. These are tiny amounts. And that's immediately after the debate before they start to forget about it. This is based on 2,543 of the likely voters who had previously responded with a margin of error of ±2.1 points. Of those respondents, 1,700 watched all or part of the debate.
So the changes in voting intention were also within the margin of error of the polls. There may have been no change in voting intention - it's consistent with their data.
QUOTE STARTS
The face-off doesn’t seem to have caused many people to reconsider their vote. That said, Biden did lose a small share of potential voters: Post-debate, 46.7 percent of likely voters said they were considering voting for him, which was 1.6 percentage points lower than before the debate. (Note that this was not a straight horse-race poll; respondents could say they were considering voting for multiple candidates.)
Trump’s support, meanwhile, barely budged, perhaps a reflection of the fact that, while Biden performed poorly on Thursday night, voters weren’t especially impressed with Trump’s performance either. The share of likely voters who said they were considering voting for Trump after the debate climbed from 43.5 percent to just 43.9 percent.
Despite not participating in the debate, third-party candidates actually gained more ground than Trump: Independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gained 1.1 points in potential support, Green Party candidate Jill Stein went from 3.1 percent to 4.2 percent and Libertarian Chase Oliver went from 2.7 percent to 3.9 percent. Who Won The First Biden-Trump Presidential Debate?
See screenshot.
Remember voters vote for many different reasons. And amongst those are their assessments of a potential president's character, and whether they trust him.
I know Trump has lots of people who are very enthusiastic about him and see no flaws, they will follow him whatever he does. But those aren't the people Trump needs to win over.
He needs to win over the undecideds, and the apolitical. He also needs to encourage those who would vote for him to turn out. And he has to do all this in the swing states where the numbers are about even and voters often are of more moderate views.
Biden has to do the same for Democrat voters in the Swing states. And then it's likely 1 in 3 or more don't vote. So the successful candidate needs to appeal to the ones who don't or rarely vote.
Remember many of the most important people in this election in terms of their votes counting have so little interest in politics that many of them can't even remember if they voted for Trump, Biden, a third party or nobody in 2020.
Both did a competent job. If you look at Biden's points he raised he said lots of things. He got many of his main points over. Both did. Trump did it with more style but with more lies.
So long as the Democrats come together behind Biden then the media circus will soon ber over likely within a few more days and the debate is not likely to have changed much if at all. And as I say in my debunk, both Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom are fully behind Biden.
DOCTOR’S OPINION: BIDEN LIKELY HAS BENIGN AGE-ASSOCIATED MEMORY IMPAIRMENT WHICH MANY HIGH FUNCTIONING SENIORS HAVE - NO SIGN OF ALZHEIMERS OR ANY DIFFICULTY IN PUTTING DOWN NEW MEMORIES OR ANY COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT
Just found a good article on what Biden likely has, benign age-associated memory impairment.
QUOTE STARTS
Fortunately, President Biden shows no signs of Alzheimer’s disease. At news conferences, he references new events and obviously creates new memories efficiently. He speaks slowly and pauses to find words like others with benign age-associated memory impairment. These issues are exacerbated by a chronic speech impediment. Biden has struggled with stuttering since childhood, and remnants of the condition have long been apparent in his speech.
Unfortunately, word hesitations coupled with the mild stutter can’t help but affect his public speaking. Biden’s political opponents and the uninformed exploit it, along with stereotypes about older people, to create a false narrative about intellectual impairment.
He goes on to talk about his own experiences with elderly patients who often are very high functioning including his family lawyer Mel Spears aged 92.
I take care of many high-functioning seniors like President Biden in my practice. One that I know, who is not a patient of mine, has been my family’s lawyer for five decades. Melvin Spears, at 96, recently responded to an emailed legal question with succinct and well-targeted advice, as he always has. When I spoke to him, he acknowledged some concessions to his age. He speaks more slowly, and transportation is a challenge because he’s stopped driving. (He considers Uber and Lyft “a hassle.”) Like Biden, Spears focuses on his work and lets others worry about his age if they choose.
Studies show that high-functioning seniors like Mel Spears and the president compensate for slower reaction time by applying superior knowledge and judgment. The presidency is not a job that requires lightning-quick reflexes. First-hand experience with the successes and failures of U.S. foreign policy over decades, for example, combined with time-tested judgment offers far more than speed in speech or decision-making.
He goes on to say that voters should vote for the president whose policies they support rather than based on ageism concluding
“But in the absence of valid evidence of true cognitive impairment, their judgment should not be influenced by ageist social stereotypes. Biden and the American political process deserve better.”
In context:
Actuarial tables show that the 81-year-old president’s life expectancy extends nearly eight years, well beyond a second term. He gets excellent healthcare, has no major chronic illnesses, and at his recent physical at Walter Reed Military Medical Center, he was declared “healthy, active” and “fit for duty.” All that means that Biden is likely to beat the actuarial estimate. Given his overall health and the absence of current cognitive impairment, he would likely complete a second term with stable cognition.
All candidates for political office in the United States deserve to be evaluated on their accomplishments and capabilities rather than by their age. Seniors may be the last minority whose natural traits are singled out for ridicule and stereotyping. If the American people disagree with President Biden’s policies and prefer change, they should support his opponent. But in the absence of valid evidence of true cognitive impairment, their judgment should not be influenced by ageist social stereotypes. Biden and the American political process deserve better.
ANOTHER DOCTOR’S OPINION - COULD IT BE COLD MEDICATION WHICH HE TOOK JUST BEFORE THE DEBATE - A FREQUENT CAUSE OF TEMPORARY COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT IN ELDERLY AND WOULD EXPLAIN WHY HE RECOVERED SO QUICKLY AFTERWARDS
It explains a lot. It's just plausible, not proof unless Biden and his team confirm (or deny) it. It would explain why he was low energy, staring into the distance and mouth open for some of the debate to an extent not characteristic of him and why this changed during and after the debate.
It was a bit puzzling how tired he looked right from the beginning compared to how he looked just the next day for his rally full of energy (for someone of his age). Something must have happened before the debate started and medicine that didn't agree with him might explain it?
It makes sense that he might take cold medicine just before the debate if he had a cold. He’d likely also believe it would improve his performance if he could deal with some of the cold symptoms
The doctor here is talking about over the counter medicines that are normally seen as very safe. But they can cause short term cognitive impairment in the elderly.
QUOTE STARTS
The most probable explanation for this transient period of cognitive impairment in an older person with a cold is a side effect of cold medications. I
In recent weeks, Biden has made several high-profile public appearances on the world stage. He commemorated the 80th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy, France, attended press briefings at the G7 Summit in Italy, and engaged with the public and world leaders. Journalists who have been beside Biden closely these past few weeks reported no such impairment, aligning with bullish sentiment from the Biden debate prep team. Everyone would have noticed if Biden exhibited even a fraction of what he displayed at the debate.
...
During the debate, particularly in the first half, Biden trailed off into odd digressions unrelated to the moderators' questions, often mumbling almost inaudibly. This performance was not just worse than the trivial gaffes we've come to expect from Biden; it appeared to indicate a clinical problem.
For instance, he commented, "...we finally beat Medicare," when responding to a question about inflation.
...
In response to a question about abortion, Biden hesitatingly offered jumbled canned lines about immigration while staring dazed, mouth agape during breaks. This is not the president we have seen in the last 3 years or even the last few weeks.
As time passed, the fog lifted. He improved throughout the debate and later in the evening, engaging with people far into the night. The next day, he delivered a fiery speech in North Carolina without missing a beat. The short half-life of many of these drugs could explain Biden's resilient post-debate appearances.
Biden's symptoms appeared consistent with someone suffering from temporary drug-induced cognitive impairment. We now know he had a bad coldopens in a new tab or window during the debate. Most people believe common over-the-counter cold medications such as DayQuil, Tylenol, or Advil to be harmless. While generally well tolerated, these medications have well-documented side effects and can cause reduced alertness, diminished attention, poor memory, and reduced reaction time, especially in older individuals. These impairments are transitory but can appear consequential and alarming. Every experienced clinician has seen this effect thousands of times. If anti-cold medications were combined with other drugs, the risks could increase even more.
Upon hearing our perspective, Yale professor of psychiatry Marshal Mandelkern, MD, PhD, concurred: "As a clinician, when someone presents with 'altered mental status' I would always think of the possibility of drug ingestion as a cause. This is not only common, it is usually the most benign explanation for a change in mental state."
...
The remedy is to ensure the president avoids these drugs and uses the experience as a teachable moment for seniors nationwide. Age may be an issue, but perhaps it is solely about susceptibility to drug effects.
...
We need to know if President Biden took cold medications before the debate. His doctors should assess the role they may have played. How the American people assess the debate hinges on the answer. It would be tragic to magnify the meaning of an ill-timed adverse drug effect -- and potentially have it change the course of history.
. Opinion | Did Cold Medications Affect Biden's Debate Performance?
Seems very plausible to me. It's just plausible, not proof unless Biden and his team confirm (or deny) it. But it would explain a lot.
US HAS A LIBERAL DEMOCRACY WHATEVER HAPPENS - PROJECT 2025 IS AN ILLEGAL FANTASY
And the US will continue to have a liberal democracy whatever happens, a democracy with a bill of rights and that won't change. And whoever is president they can't even pass laws without Congress and they can't decide how the laws are interpreted, that's for the Judiciary and they can't order police or generals to act counter to the laws because the oath is to protect the US constitution above all. The US has a very robust constitution.
TRUMP CAN’T START A NUCLEAR WAR IF PRESIDENT
Some worry that Trump could start a nuclear war if president. No he can’t. And a decision to start a war is also something that a general can refuse if the plan is bonkers and not in accord with the law of armed conduct e.g. too much risk of civilian casualties in Seoul.
Some worry that Trump could start a nuclear war if president. No he can’t. And a decision to start a war is also something that a general can refuse if the plan is bonkers and not in accord with the law of armed conduct e.g. too much risk of civilian casualties in Seoul.
Trump just bluffed with North Korea. And a decision to start a war is also something that a general can refuse if the plan is bonkers and not in accord with the law of armed conduct e.g. too much risk of civilian casualties in Seoul.
Trump himself said that war wasn't really an option for the US against NK referring to the size of the population of Seoul. He said that after the first Kim / Trump summit.
See my BLOG: What has the Kim - Trump summit achieved?
The situation of what to do if a president orders a nuclear attack in peace time came up with Trump, legislators in the Senate held a special hearing because they were concerned about whether he could order the US to fire nukes in peace time and felt that Congress might need to pass extra laws to prevent this.
But the US general Kehler was able to reassure them that this was not possible. That a 4 star or 5 star general such as himself trained in the law of armed conduct would say that sorry this is impossible. He said in his own words that generals are not "shrinking violets" a phrase referring to an easily bullied timid person.
They would politely refuse, explain why they can't do it, and if the president insisted they would get their legal team to talk to the president's legal team as they would have legal experts listening in on any such request. And if the president insisted it would be kicked down to Congress.
This is based on expert testimony to a Senate hearing in 2017 after Trump exchanged nuclear bluffs with Kim Jong Un and senators worried about what would happen if Trump actually gave an illegal order to drop nukes on North Korea.
The answer is the general would say he can’t proceed with the order and call on his lawyers if pressed further on the matter. This blog post is based on the 2017 US Senate hearing which you can find with an auto-generated transcript on C-SPAN here: : Authority to Order the Use of Nuclear Weapons (Immediately following Business Meeting) | United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations)
Brian McKeon, former acting under secretary for policy in the Obama administration said “Four-star generals are not shrinking violets” (a phrase meaning a shy or easily intimidated person).
Four-star generals are not shrinking violets. I can recall a circumstance, I won't identify the commander and it was not a nuclear issue, where a combatant commander was looking down the road and seeing a scenario where he saw he was going to get some order and he was wondering whether that was going to be a legal order and he started asking questions months in advance of the office of general counsel in osd. It is a human system, and the human system can break down. but people don't get to be four-star generals unless they are strong individuals.
1:35:25 into the hearing here: Authority to Order the Use of Nuclear Weapons (Immediately following Business Meeting) | United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
1:07:00 into the same hearing:
We certainly do train everyone who wears a uniform on what we collectively call the law of armed conflict. ... It includes the nuclear forces, it includes everyone wearing a uniform. It is not a foreign concept to those who wear uniforms.
The four principles of the law of armed conduct are
(1) Distinction – to distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and direct operations only against military objectives.”
(2) Proportionality – Loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the military advantage
(3) Military Necessity – “…[E]very injury done to the enemy, even though permitted by the rules, is excusable only so far as it is absolutely necessary; everything beyond that is criminal.”
(4) Unnecessary Suffering – “It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and materials and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.”
My debunk here will help there:
NUKES ARE NOT CONTROLLED BY THE PRESIDENT OR COMPUTERS - THIS IS INTENTIONAL
Nukes are not controlled by computers either. They can only be launched by humans.
Also a president can't use nukes himself.
It's the same for Trump and for Putin. They don't have a literal button.
Their briefcases only have codes they use to identify themselves to generals
There are humans all the way down and multiple precautions to make sure nobody can fire a nuke just because they are angry or confused or even gone insane.
BLOG: Trump or any other president can’t launch a nuke even if he were to go mad
BLOG: Trump or any other president can’t launch a nuke even if he were to go mad
Neither Trump nor Putin would really use nukes. Because they would have to have lost any ability for coherent thought.
With Trump when he was president despite his many nuclear bluffs he was actually the first president to oversee a change of US policy which means they no longer would respond to nukes with nukes.
They would respond to nukes more sensibly by shooting down any nukes and by a conventional and unconventional non nuclear response such as hacking, secret agents, sabotage etc to stop Rsusai from firing more nukes..
But nobody is going to use nukes because it makes no sense. They would have to lose all ability to think coherently.
If Trump is president he might well bluff and it might be difficult for easily scared people because of the bluffs but he was actually a president that never started any wars.
Nor did Biden.
WATCH THE CNN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
You can watch the debate here:
Video: CNN Presidential Debate: President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump
CNN Takeaways: Takeaways from CNN’s presidential debate with Biden and Trump | CNN Politics
CNN’S FACT CHECK - TRUMP HAD 30 FAILED FACT CHECKS AND BIDEN 9 - AND CRITICISM FOR NOT FACT CHECKING LIVE - BUT ALSO ISSUES WITH LIVE FACT CHECKING
CNN did share a fact check soon after, though most watchers didn't see this:
CNN found that Trump had 30 major failed fact checks and Biden had 9 failed fact checks. Details here:
. YouTube
See:
. Fact checking the CNN presidential debate | CNN Politics
It is somewhat moderated by the way that we have such easy access to fact checks afterwards.
Also Trump poses unique challenges because of the sheer number of his lies. It would hold up the debate a lot to fact check everything he says. It is also hard for human fact checkers to respond fast enough. But there are calls to fact check the most obvious and serious fact checks such as Trump's claims that Democrat states permit killing a baby after it is born i.e. infanticide which is a clear blatant lie.
Many are saying he should have been called up on at least that one.
Here is an article about the difficulty fact checking live and especially fact checking Trump because of the volume of lies.
QUOTE STARTS
“I think that there is a very real question about whether it is possible to fact-check Donald Trump live on television,” said Jane Hall, author of “Politics and the Media: Intersections and New Directions” and an American University journalism professor. “He has confounded many different formats.”CNN's Daniel Dale offered a report in which he said Trump had made at least 30 false claims, and Biden at least nine. But it wasn't shown on the air until more than an hour after the debate ended — just shy of midnight on the East Coast.
...
Bill Adair, a professor of journalism and public policy at Duke University who founded Politifact, said it's extraordinarily difficult to balance on-air corrections with the need to keep a conversation moving.That said, “for them to be completely silent, I think, was going too far,” said Adair, who is no longer affiliated with Politifact. When Trump falsely claimed during an abortion discussion that Democrats supported killing live babies, one of the moderators should have stepped in, he said.
...
Politifact pointed out 15 false statements made by Trump and another one — that Biden had allowed millions of people illegally into the country from jails and mental institutions — that it classified as a “pants on fire” lie. It cited three false statements by Biden.The New York Times chronicled 20 false statements by Trump, with another 21 it said were either misleading, lacked context or lacked evidence. Its fact check pointed out no false statements by Biden, with 11 meeting the other characterizations. The Associated Press corrected 11 statements by Trump, four by Biden.
The Washington Post wrote that Trump “confidently relied on false assertions that have been debunked repeatedly” while Biden “stretched the truth occasionally.”
Some journalists, like Dale, fact-checked online during the debate, yet that required viewers to specifically pay attention to a second screen. Adair noted that at Duke, educators have experimented with ways to fact-check on television screens in real-time, yet automated efforts have largely failed and those led by humans require great speed.
Fact checks were prevalent during and after the Biden-Trump debate — but not for real-time viewers
Here are some good fact checks that are detailed and not one sided. These are the best I found:
Associated Press FACT FOCUS: Here's a look at some of the false claims made during Biden and Trump's first debate
Politifact 2024 presidential debate: Fact-checks of Biden and Trump)
Washington post: fact-check-presidential-debate
SEE ALSO
DISABLED COMMENTS - WHEN FIRST POSTED
This is a post that might get comments from people who just read the title, and don't read the post itself and those can scare the people I help with their many mistaken statements that are often already debunked in the post they comment on - which they don’t even read.
This has happened so often that I now disable comments when I first do blog posts likely to attract comments by people who don’t read the article.
I then usually re-enable comments after giving time for it to drop out of people’s news feeds for Quora or from Google search results.
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL THE BEST WAY TO CONTACT ME AS I DON’T GET NOTIFICATIONS FOR MANY COMMENTS ON MY POSTS
If you need to talk to me about something do contact me it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages).
Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:
I usually get those messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group
Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking.
We also have many scared and panicking people use our group. If you can help as a first responder basically just to help people who are panicking to listen to them, help them to calm down a bit, find out what the issue is and so on it’s a great help as sometimes it’s some hours before someone can do a detailed debunk, whoever can help might be asleep or doing something else etc etc.. So that’s also a great help.
SHORT DEBUNKS (NEW)
I have just started a new page called “short debunks”. This has all the substantial debunks I do for the Facebook group. As you see I do many more of these, often ten a day, far too many to write them all up as blog posts., It only has the most recent short debunks, it would take ages to update it with older ones.
But if there is something scaring you in the news you may find I have debunked it here already.