Originally Posted By Lone_Eagle:
American media:  “Joe is best president evah!!!”

Overseas media:  “What a joke America has become. Elected a dementia patient who can’t even read a teleprompter without making a gaffe.”

Originally Posted By 1975:
Fox News said it was actually his idea.

The advisers also revealed the idea came from Biden himself, who pushed for the new approach before it was implemented in mid-April

Originally Posted By MacManus:
wish he'd fall down more.

Originally Posted By chmodx:
He walks like C3PO

https://i.imgur.com/RlVH85P.gif

Originally Posted By ExFed1811:
Where is a tail rotor strike when you need one?

Originally Posted By AJ_Dual:
Biden doesn't even consistently remember/realize he's President.

The problem his obvious diminished capacity presents is a far bigger one. Because if the MPOTUS is just some meat-puppet figurehead, is this really some new low for American governance we've reached? Or, is it a more cosmetic issue where an extremely decrepit figurehead that cannot even handle the figurehead duties making it blatantly obvious the MPOTUS is merely a figurehead, and has been for some time?

And if so, for how long?

And how will the American public react to this?

Will some simply engage in rationalization and utilitarian thinking, telling themselves that some combination of "Orange Man Bad" and party control is "worth it." And believes a better, more functional Democratic "actual President" will occupy the White House sooner or later?

Will some just get more acclimated and inured to subsequent Presidents that are increasingly obvious figureheads? It gets more openly acceptable as status quo?

Does it help explain anything else that ocurred in regards to the President or Executive Branch over previous Administrations?

Does it explain some of the more outrageous, baseless, and double-standard things done against Trump? That what went on, however the Executive Branch "actually runs," Trump brought no one with him that successfully occupied those Executive Branch oligarchy slots, and he didn't bring anyone in who already did come from there?

Did how Trump, somewhat coming out from left field, and not taken seriously until the last moment, mean there was no time for some more permanent presence in the Executive Branch to vet him or groom him as a figurehead?

Perhaps the more usual patterns and political career progressions of Governors, Senators, Congressmen, or being a serving VP first, provides the needed time for this? Or creates the surface area so that leverage can be obtained?

Is the actual Executive Branch seat of power some complicated network of individuals on the GS scale below the level of Presidential nomination and Senate confirmations? And only when one of them gets such nomination and confirmation, do they effectively lead that agency or cabinet?

Is it why Hillary Clinton could so blatantly violate Federal laws on record keeping, security, and other things, that generally speaking "have teeth" and are generally on the more: "Don't FAFO with that"-end of the CFR, with the damn private email server in the Clinton mansion bathroom closet? And nothing came of it?

Is it why the Clintons, both from the time Bill was Governor of Arkansas, and onward, and in the White House, were involved in a dozen odd scandals, and none, but the Lewinsky deposition perjury actually "stuck" at all? And even then, not very much? And all of them arguably more serious than Watergate, or at least Nixon's somewhat after-the-fact exposure to Watergate and his role in it. And the Clintons were far more directly involved in the various kinds of impropriety from the beginning, and it can all be characterized as being for their direct benefit.

Was JFK and Nixon/Watergate the transition, or the battle to wrest control of the Executive Branch from the POTUS?

Were the three main Republican Presidencies after Nixon, and before Trump, Reagan, Bush Sr., & Bush Jr., all somewhat characterized by big initiatives, policies, or events that more or less moved in directions large chunks of the Executive Branch Bureaucracy might want to go? And that's how these Republican Presidencies "survived?"

Reagan: Defense build up. Opposing/confronting the USSR. That would obviously get support from the DOD, CIA, NSA, NRO.

Bush Sr.: Gulf War I.

Bush Jr.: 9/11, Patriot Act, creating DHS, Gulf War II, Afghanistan.

Does it even better explain Obama's meteoric rise from ACORN community organizer to POTUS, and how it happened so quickly?  That the "optics" and demeanor of his speechmaking delivery, and the rush for Affirmative Action checkboxing being the primary drivers, make all that much more sense if the POTUS is a figurehead?

This is probably nothing "new" and I'm sure there's theories and books on this. Maybe very very well known ones I'm simply completely ignorant of.

And there's always been talk how elected officials come and go, but the various government bureaucracies are staffed by people working 20+ years, and the bureaucracies themselves are perpetual.

So obviously, that question of: "Where is the actual power in the Federal Government?" has been "a thing" for some time now. But, is the President even far weaker than most might even consider? And the ruling cabal, or some sort of stochastic oligarchy of Executive Branch Bureaucrats that's held the real power for some time, is simply getting more brazen and overt?

Originally Posted By 9divdoc:
If Biden was a conservative the sarcastic jeering ridicule from Hollywood Comedians and Media Pundits would be a thunderous non stop tumult.
The whole world would be pointing fingers and laughing

Originally Posted By JCoop:
How else are they going to carry a bunch of Depends? Those things are bulky.

Originally Posted By GimpyPaw:
Terrible idea.  You're showing people with normal walking gaits right next to Biden with his A-typical walking gait.  Even in the still photograph you can see the difference in posture, arm positioning, and leg extension.  It's only going to make him stand out even more.

Originally Posted By oscardeuce:



The same folks who attacked Reagan under the same circumstances are suddenly silent…

Originally Posted By MacManus:
wish he'd fall down more.

Originally Posted By AJ_Dual:
Biden doesn't even consistently remember/realize he's President.

The problem his obvious diminished capacity presents is a far bigger one. Because if the MPOTUS is just some meat-puppet figurehead, is this really some new low for American governance we've reached? Or, is it a more cosmetic issue where an extremely decrepit figurehead that cannot even handle the figurehead duties making it blatantly obvious the MPOTUS is merely a figurehead, and has been for some time?

And if so, for how long?

And how will the American public react to this?

Will some simply engage in rationalization and utilitarian thinking, telling themselves that some combination of "Orange Man Bad" and party control is "worth it." And believes a better, more functional Democratic "actual President" will occupy the White House sooner or later?

Will some just get more acclimated and inured to subsequent Presidents that are increasingly obvious figureheads? It gets more openly acceptable as status quo?

Does it help explain anything else that ocurred in regards to the President or Executive Branch over previous Administrations?

Does it explain some of the more outrageous, baseless, and double-standard things done against Trump? That what went on, however the Executive Branch "actually runs," Trump brought no one with him that successfully occupied those Executive Branch oligarchy slots, and he didn't bring anyone in who already did come from there?

Did how Trump, somewhat coming out from left field, and not taken seriously until the last moment, mean there was no time for some more permanent presence in the Executive Branch to vet him or groom him as a figurehead?

Perhaps the more usual patterns and political career progressions of Governors, Senators, Congressmen, or being a serving VP first, provides the needed time for this? Or creates the surface area so that leverage can be obtained?

Is the actual Executive Branch seat of power some complicated network of individuals on the GS scale below the level of Presidential nomination and Senate confirmations? And only when one of them gets such nomination and confirmation, do they effectively lead that agency or cabinet?

Is it why Hillary Clinton could so blatantly violate Federal laws on record keeping, security, and other things, that generally speaking "have teeth" and are generally on the more: "Don't FAFO with that"-end of the CFR, with the damn private email server in the Clinton mansion bathroom closet? And nothing came of it?

Is it why the Clintons, both from the time Bill was Governor of Arkansas, and onward, and in the White House, were involved in a dozen odd scandals, and none, but the Lewinsky deposition perjury actually "stuck" at all? And even then, not very much? And all of them arguably more serious than Watergate, or at least Nixon's somewhat after-the-fact exposure to Watergate and his role in it. And the Clintons were far more directly involved in the various kinds of impropriety from the beginning, and it can all be characterized as being for their direct benefit.

Was JFK and Nixon/Watergate the transition, or the battle to wrest control of the Executive Branch from the POTUS?

Were the three main Republican Presidencies after Nixon, and before Trump, Reagan, Bush Sr., & Bush Jr., all somewhat characterized by big initiatives, policies, or events that more or less moved in directions large chunks of the Executive Branch Bureaucracy might want to go? And that's how these Republican Presidencies "survived?"

Reagan: Defense build up. Opposing/confronting the USSR. That would obviously get support from the DOD, CIA, NSA, NRO.

Bush Sr.: Gulf War I.

Bush Jr.: 9/11, Patriot Act, creating DHS, Gulf War II, Afghanistan.

Does it even better explain Obama's meteoric rise from ACORN community organizer to POTUS, and how it happened so quickly?  That the "optics" and demeanor of his speechmaking delivery, and the rush for Affirmative Action checkboxing being the primary drivers, make all that much more sense if the POTUS is a figurehead?

This is probably nothing "new" and I'm sure there's theories and books on this. Maybe very very well known ones I'm simply completely ignorant of.

And there's always been talk how elected officials come and go, but the various government bureaucracies are staffed by people working 20+ years, and the bureaucracies themselves are perpetual.

So obviously, that question of: "Where is the actual power in the Federal Government?" has been "a thing" for some time now. But, is the President even far weaker than most might even consider? And the ruling cabal, or some sort of stochastic oligarchy of Executive Branch Bureaucrats that's held the real power for some time, is simply getting more brazen and overt?