Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Only 4 or 5 of those things might indirectly benefit regular, everyday, middle class Americans.
Biden is Obama.I think the issue here might be that they believe Biden hasn't done anything because Trump keeps thinking that Obama is the current president. And they can't say that Trump is wrong.
I'll just assume you didn't look that close then.Only 4 or 5 of those things might indirectly benefit regular, everyday, middle class Americans.
Great. Proof or just a reason to not engage meaningfully?...And I don't believe any of those things were initiated by Joe Biden.
Personally I think they both are a little "off"Nevertheless, if you find someone's behavior dangerous it is irresponsible not to consider it in your vote.
And physicians with NDAs may have diagnosed much worse.
I'm pretty sure one is quite younger than the other, married to different women, one has daughters while the other sons and if I'm not completely wrong, I think there's a slight difference in their skin pigmentation. Oh, and they have different names. Besides that, I guess it's easy for you to mistake one for the other.Biden is Obama.
Biden is Obama.
Cognitive tests are so basic, it is not likely either of them would fail today.
I'll show you a picture of an animal, tell me what it is.
A) That's a car.
Sorry, you failed that on, it's actually an elephant.
Ohhhh, I saw the trunk and thought it must be a car. Next question please.
So, not only are we wanting to investigate Trump again, this time for his cognitive abilities, but also, we want to investigate the media, for not having already investigated Trump on this.
...That's a lot of investigating.
Perhaps we need a word to describe a new Logical Fallacy, where an opponent calls for massive amounts of investigations in order to discredit a person, or 'poison a well'... Possibly even a new word in English for calling foul too much? Something to consider.
I think this would be the precursor to "lawfare"... Where it begins, but can also be applied to discredit something on it's own - not necessarily needing the law to accomplish it's
In that case you should consider character and morality. The differences are great. I would almost say an epic battle between good and evil, democracy and dictatorship...Personally I think they both are a little "off"
The differences aren't all that great .... when a President signs something via executive order ... they are in a sense being a dictator .... they all do it.In that case you should consider character and morality. The differences are great. I would almost say an epic battle between good and evil, democracy and dictatorship...
Although, unbelievably, some people don't understand that a "dictator for a day" could--and very well might--erase democracy with a few executive orders in that day.
Right. I agree.It don't matter .... God's plan will play out no matter how many presidents come an go. I look forward to His return and ends this mess. Amen
Trump described the test he took. He was told five words, coincidently those 5 things were right in front of him when he was telling his story to the interviewer. But anyway, how he described it was that he had to remember the 5 words, getting them in the right order was a bonus, to which is doctor was amazed "how did you do that?" much like how I would respond when my infant eats solids for the first time.Did you know you can take a scaled back cognitive assessment on your own? It's called XpressO and it's offered by MoCA Cognition. | Digital tools
How does it work? Well, it's a little more complex than what you described. You start with 5 images. You are asked to order those images however you like, and then remember the order. You then complete a pattern of shapes, sizes and colors, and then you are shown about 25 images, and you must pick the 5 that were originally shown and put them back in the order you placed them. You do this three times while being timed, the patterns getting a little more complex with each iteration.
Anyone that wants to do this can go to the link above and try it for themselves.
How would Biden or Trump perform on such a test? We have no idea, because there are people on both sides trying to make believe their guy doesn't need a cognitive assessment. But I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that according to my test results, I have excellent cognition for a man in his mid-40s.
I can see that one question is called "Naming"How does it work? Well, it's a little more complex than what you described.
Trump described the test he took. He was told five words, coincidently those 5 things were right in front of him when he was telling his story to the interviewer. But anyway, how he described it was that he had to remember the 5 words, getting them in the right order was a bonus, to which is doctor was amazed "how did you do that?" much like how I would respond when my infant eats solids for the first time.
Probably because his doctor didn't recommend it. He shouldn't run around taking tests that random people (haters) on the internet want him to take.Yes, there's no doubt that Trump embellished his results, like he always does.
But one has to wonder, if this is such a simple test that Biden could pass with ease, why he doesn't just take 15 minutes and take the test.
I can see that one question is called "Naming"
and it has three images of animals. A Lion, a Rhinoceros and a camel. Pretty tricky for a person with cognitive deficiency, but probably easy for both Trump and Biden.
Probably because his doctor didn't recommend it. He shouldn't run around taking tests that random people (haters) on the internet want him to take.
The “He must be guilty of something “ fallacy?So, not only are we wanting to investigate Trump again, this time for his cognitive abilities, but also, we want to investigate the media, for not having already investigated Trump on this.
...That's a lot of investigating.
Perhaps we need a word to describe a new Logical Fallacy, where an opponent calls for massive amounts of investigations in order to discredit a person, or 'poison a well'... Possibly even a new word in English for calling foul too much? Something to consider.
I think this would be the precursor to "lawfare"... Where it begins, but can also be applied to discredit something on it's own - not necessarily needing the law to accomplish it's desired goals.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?