Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did you ever see Awakenings with Robin Williams (which is closely based on a true story)? There are treatments you can give people to *temporarily* and dramatically improve functioning. But they can't be sustained. Similar options are available for many conditions. You can pump a seriously ill person up on steroids and cocaine for a couple of days and they'll suddenly seem okay until they drop dead. Many street drugs make you feel amazing until they don't.
For what it's worth, Biden obviously does not have dementia. All the evidence suggests that he has normal, age-related cognitive decline for a man in his 80s. I have no reason to believe he is being given any medication, but there are plenty of things you can give someone that make them temporarily sharper and more focused (like Adderall).
In real life, the condition wasn't dementia, it was *encephalitis lethargica*.
Speaking from my personal relationships with people with dementia, the damaged parts of the brain don't come back, not even temporarily.
Depending on the person, there are meds that can slow the degeneration and help people cope with the changes, but there's nothing that can restore what has been lost.
>In real life, the condition wasn't dementia, it was *encephalitis lethargica*.
Yes, and your point is what?
>Speaking from my personal relationships with people with dementia
When you say dementia, do you mean Alzheimer's?
Most people referring to Biden having "dementia" are using that term quite loosely to be "cognitive impairment." As I said above, in Biden's case, that's probably just ordinary age-related decline and he's actually sharper than most people I know in their 80s.
There are many drugs that temporarily boost cognitive function: amphetamines, eugeroics, methylphenidate (Ritalin), etc. All of these also have a lot of abuse potential.
One point, for sure, is that you shouldn't use movies to diagnose people, even when the "patient" is the incomparable actor, Robert DeNiro.
Another point is that the diseases that cause dementia typically cause physical deterioration of the brain, which doesn't heal. *Encephalitis lethargica* is an extremely rare condition that causes catatonia and Parkinsonism, but not dementia.
Caffeine boosts cognitive function, too, but it isn't going to stimulate parts of the brain that are gone.
I believe parts of what you are saying to be true. The reality of dementia is you can't disguise someone with a bombed-out brain, no matter what you can accomplish with their alertness and mood.
My friend and I planted irises a few years ago, then dementia set in and it took a year to get her on some great meds, memantine and donepezil.
My friend can now admire the "purple flowers" comfortably, but aphasia got the word "iris" and she has no memory of planting them. Believing that you can hide dementia with pills or shots is not credible, in my experience and I have read nothing to support that either.
I'll try one more time.
I think you're trying to talk about Alzheimer's when you say "dementia", right?
When people say "Biden has dementia" they don't mean (except, maybe, for some crazies) that Biden has Alzheimer's. They mean "Biden is displaying cognitive impairment of some kind."
I'm glad we agree that Biden doesn't have a degenerative brain disease.
What cognitive impairment have you observed? His speech at the SOU went two hours. It was cogent and well-reviewed, even by detractors.
>His speech at the SOU went two hours. It was cogent and well-reviewed, even by detractors.
You know presidents don't write their own speeches, right? He was reading it. No one is seriously suggesting that he's declined to a point where he can't read.
>What cognitive impairment have you observed?
When you compare Biden's public appearances today to when he was VP, you can see that he's much more forgetful and less sharp. The Wall Street Journal had a [long report](https://archive.is/L4WKz) on this recently.
I think an even stronger tell is the fact that he avoids interviews, press conferences, and other unscripted interactions. This is a guy who's famous for liking that stuff, so there's some reason he's not doing it.
He's older, certainly, and octogenarians slow down. Hard for me to offer more when your source is paywalled.
[Biden did a press conference 12 days ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiLgGjFzcV4), and he expressed a thorough and deep understanding of what's going on in Ukraine. And Gaza. See 19:41. Even though the topic was not Gaza, and even though he complained about the reporter's question, he still managed to provide a thorough answer. Seems like he can still handle spontaneity just fine.
So, no, I do not know what you are talking about when you suggest he avoids press conferences and unscripted interactions.
>What cognitive impairment have you observed?
Countless word salad, gibberish statements.
Plenty of videos of him clearly zoinked out or appearing lost.
Forgetting he just got his hand shaken.
> It was cogent and well-reviewed, even by detractors.
He couldn't even say Laiken Riley. Dude did start strong, but was out of it by the end. That's part of why people say the whole "on uppers" thing. They were wearing off after the first hour when most people tune out that aren't politicos who have already made their mind up
> Countless word salad, gibberish statements.
As I said, he did just fine for two straight hours at the SOU, you're going to have to do a little better than "people say" he was on uppers.
>Laiken Riley
You know that Biden has a stutter, right? "People say" he didn't show any cognitive impairment, nor did he show signs of drug use.
>I think you're trying to talk about Alzheimer's when you say "dementia", right?
You are insistent on this point, and I don't understand why.
You do know that there are other kinds of dementia, right? Not all dementia is Alzheimers. Alzheimers accounts for 60-80% of dementia, but vascular dementia is still dementia.
Dementia is separate from normal slight age related cognitive decline.
You seem right on everything else, just oddly focused on this one minor detail.
>You do know that there are other kinds of dementia, right? Not all dementia is Alzheimers. Alzheimers accounts for 60-80% of dementia, but vascular dementia is still dementia.
Yes, and the relevant medical treatment varies based on cause.
If you look up dementia [in the dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dementia), you get:
>a usually progressive condition (such as Alzheimer's disease) marked by the development of multiple cognitive deficits (such as memory impairment, aphasia, and the inability to plan and initiate complex behavior)
And that's what people mean when Biden has dementia; that he is experiencing cognitive decline. Not that he meets the formal diagnostic criteria for any particular condition or disease.
>You are insistent on this point, and I don't understand why.
Because OP and others in this thread appear to be completely misinterpreting the concerns about Biden.
>Because OP and others in this thread appear to be completely misinterpreting the concerns about Biden.
I am not sure that's true.
There seem to be some people who genuinely believe he's deeply affected by dementia. Like doesn't recognize loved ones level affected.
Others have different concerns, but there are some people who really think he's fully incapacitated.
>I'll try one more time.
I used to think the whole thing about some people not being capable of understanding higher thinking and hypotheticals that goes like this....
"imagine you didn't eat breakfast this morning how would you feel...?"
"But i did eat breakfast this morning"
... was bs but sometimes man, and a few times recently on this sub, I'm more convcined it's not bs.
This is a good point. I think people mistake dementia for a disease but it is only a diagnosis for unspecified cognitive decline, temporary or permanent.
I do believe Biden has dementia (cognitive decline) but I see people who are percieved as completely normal and healthy that also occasionally display signs of dementia. If someone who hates Biden asks me if he has dementia, I am inclined to say no, because they do not understand anything enough about the term and just seek affirmations.
>Speaking from my personal relationships with people with dementia, the damaged parts of the brain don't come back, not even temporarily.
What about the videos and studies showing music from different times helps people recall things they otherwise couldn't? Take almost vegetative old folks and for a short while after hearing a few songs from their childhood and they're answering questions again?
That's always scared me because to me that shows it's all still there they just can't access it all the time
I've noticed that with my friend...there are a few memories that are deeply rooted, but it's neither consistent or predictable. The problem with degenerative brain diseases is that parts of the container that holds the memories are simply no longer there.
Old people slow down, that's not what I'm talking about. There's a difference between tapping into long-dormant neural pathways and pathways that are simply no longer present.
With dementia, I don't think it's "all still there"...that's more akin to the *encephalitis lethargica* that OP mentioned, where you have catatonia. Or, since we are all about movie diseases now, the pseudocoma in *Diving Bell and the Butterfly*. That would be very scary indeed, but it's also very rare.
associative memory triggers are the one reliable way to control your memory, scent is an even more powerful trigger than sound, but both of those are superior to visual stimulus.
Also, there is often different levels of functioning depending on the time of day. Symptoms are generally worse at night, a phenomenon known as “sundowning”.
What we saw with Biden was not dementia. I totally agree. If it were, he would have never made it 90 minutes and it would have been way worse. Don’t get me wrong, it was bad. It was not the Joe of 4 years ago. It would fall more in the range of age related cognitive decline, as you mentioned.
In my opinion, he would have benefitted from a low dose of modafinil. The debate was relatively late. A time when cognitive decline is more apparent. A wakefulness stimulator like modafinil, in my opinion. Could have made a difference. Low dose adderall wouldn’t have been a bad idea, the modafinil is just a bit smoother.
I work in medicine. Biden does not have dementia, but he does have age-related cognitive decline. I mean, they have constructed a replica of the debate stage, including an actor playing a Trump heckler, in order to cognitively prepare Biden for the scenario. If they had such miraculous drugs to keep Biden sharp, then they wouldn't need such elaborate preparations just to prevent him from getting confused on the day of.
There are some drugs that the White House can get that aren't available in the US, like nootropics from Russia for treating cognitive decline. Vinpocetine comes to mind. This is almost never used in the US even though it has proven uses in Russia. That is to say, the WH can probably source drugs internationally, and has more latitude to do off-label prescribing.
More than that, Biden has an entire medical team following him 24/7, creating and adjusting protocols, and optimizing his life style. That kind of access is going to be amazing for someone's health, but it can only do so much.
Really, this election is a piece of crap. You have a geriatric meanderer who doesn't know where he is or what he's saying half the time vs. a sociopathic narcissist who will likely invoke fascist-like powers of vengeance upon his enemies and DC itself if elected. What great options! Democracy sure does look shiny these days.
1) this medication is amphetamine, possibly methamphetamine (trade name as a drug: Desoxyn). It is freely available and if a senior was in a situation where they absolutely needed to perform at their best for a few hours and this was worth giving them a risk of heart attack, stroke, aneurysm or heart failure, they would be prescribed it. The risk is very rarely worth it for anyone, so this is not commonly done. The rules for elites are different, if Dr. Schmoe prescribed your grandad methamphetamine to get through your daughter's piano recital he could be arrested for this because it would be irresponsible and dangerous.
2) he probably does take a stimulant daily but the amounts needed to get him through a debate would kill him if used regularly.
3) amphetamines can cause psychosis, hallucinations, increased aggression, impulsivity, compulsive behavior and a host of other side effects that would be very, very scary in the leader of the free world.
Did you know that during Trump's presidency the White House had a [huge drug problem](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-white-house-drugs-speed-xanax-1234979503/)? Medication was given without much oversight, and shoddy record keeping. The WH ordered thousands of doses of a stimulant called modafinil, which is used by military pilots to stay alert during long missions.
The whole "Biden is on drugs" thing is a direct projection from Trump and his staff.
I actually wrote about this in at least three other comments.
Yes Trump's doctor may loose his license. Modanafil is a very benign drug though I took its prodrug form adrafinil for years for shift work disorder . It can be hard on your liver but there's none of the risks amphetamines have as it is not a stimulant and does not affect your emotions or brain really.
In fact modanafil replaced amphetamine in the military precisely because it does not affect your rationality, something of prime importance when you are on a 12-hour mission carrying nuclear bombs.
That said his opiates, benzodiazapines and other drugs that were dispensed to the white house were out of control, however given this was something the inside staff was totally unconcerned with that shows you how commonplace this is for politicians to have their Dr. Feelgood.
Modafinil is classified as a central nervous system stimulant and psychostimulant, and is used to keep military pilots awake.
Trump is accusing Biden of taking stimulants/medication to "prop him up".
Trump's WH prescribed, quite literally, thousands and thousands of modanafil pills (along with other prescription meds like xanax).
Do you think that Trump might be projecting when he's accusing Biden of doing exactly what he himself has been doing?
no I don't think it's projection I think it's a tactic.
he knows every politician does this, and he is making a bet that he can perform better without them than Biden does if he forces the issue
where did I say I was okay with it?
if you only get news analysis from people that tell you what you want to hear you will be misinformed.
i am explaining the likely calculus on his campaigns part.
why would you come here to ask questions then use baseless insults if someone gives you a likely to be factual and neutral description of a politicians motivations?
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
It’s classified as a stimulant, but it is unique in that it is not based on amphetamines. It also does not show up in routine drug screen. It’s schedule 4 which is lightly regulated.
some classify it as a stimulant.
Other people make a good case that it is a non-stimulant eugrotic, it affects wakefulness without CNS or PNS stimulation.
I think on a pharmacological level this is accurate, it does not raise heart rate, blood pressure or respiratory rate which are the hallmarks of a true stimulant. It does not constrict blood vessels either, the major hallmark of non-amphetamine stimulants like cocaine and aminorexes.
In any event the important part is it does not cause loss of rationality, increased aggression, hypersexuality or psychosis the way amphetamines do and I don't care about CNS profiles I care about whether the president is going to tell Kim Jong Un he's a sexual tyrannosaurus or think communists are trying to steal his DNA.
Yea, its classification is interesting. It’s a great drug. I take it myself sometimes for shift work. It’s a game changer. Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem if Joe took some here and there. Why not?
absolutely in fact if you have a job like theirs and DO NOT enhance yourself given the lives in your hands you are not being very responsible. Your ability to save american lives matters more than anything. As long as it doesn't compromise your rationality, but that's the beauty of Modanafil/adrafinil.
Right on man, we’re on the same page. You must have been an early adopter with the adrafinil. Was that a long time ago? I used modafanil for years when it was called Provigil and cost a fortune. I now use Armodafinil which is the R-isomer of modafinil. It’s about 30% more potent and comes in a 250mg tablet. In my opinion, it’s one of the best kept secrets in psychiatry.
I was, adrafinil was the first discovered in fact, its' the prodrug form of modanafil but can be hard on your liver because of it.
It's a fantastic drug it got me through third shift for years.
Racetams haven't ever worked for me except coluracetam which gives me the "HD vision" effect for sure, increasing visual acuity but I never felt all that much more focused.
Sadly I'm a little too young to remember when you could get vasopressin. Human augmentation is a passion of mine but I have a very low risk tolerance so I stick to things that are white-market and studied as safe, or as safe as it gets. That's why I don't touch the non-amphetamine CNS stimulants or anything but the classic 80s nootropics and their well-studied analogs.
Lucidril is another fantastic secret, it's a powerful anti-oxidant and that's about it. Subtle in effect but studied to increase lifespan in rats. It just improves general brain health as you age by lowering oxidative stress. Can also cause lucid dreaming, hence the name.
>The risk is very rarely worth it for anyone, so this is not commonly done. The rules for elites are different, if Dr. Schmoe prescribed your grandad methamphetamine to get through your daughter's piano recital he could be arrested for this because it would be irresponsible and dangerous.
I'm confused because I would have thought the opposite - that for the most powerful man in the world they would be more risk averse than to prescribe medication that might cause him to spontaneously have a stroke and die during a live national audience.
>he probably does take a stimulant daily but the amounts needed to get him through a debate would kill him if used regularly.
Do you have anything to back this up? It just seems like a convenient way to resolve these obvious contractions that I'm bringing up.
>amphetamines can cause psychosis, hallucinations, increased aggression, impulsivity, compulsive behavior and a host of other side effects that would be very, very scary in the leader of the free world.
Well wait, if those are the side effects then why would this be at all helpful to perform during a debate? If Joe Biden has hallucinations and psychosis, that would make for a very poor performance, wouldn't it?
Look I'm just going to say, go look up amphetamines, because I cannot explain all the effects of an entire class of drugs in a quick way on reddit that will leave no gotchas.
That said to attempt to answer briefly:
1) Like I said, different rules. They have the personal power to make doctors do inadvisable things. This man controls the FDA after all. This is just how it is, at the top they live by different rules. Also they dial these things in so the risk is low, but not nonexistent. For a VIP things like wearing a continuous blood pressure monitor and having multiple doctors on standby are more practical than for Grandpa Bill.
2) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4497800/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4497800/)
3) Those are **potential** side effects. That is probably why he is at Camp David right now doctors making sure none of those are likely to happen on stage. You appear to be mistaking possible chronic side-effects for "will happen if he takes a pill and goes on stage". Most of the worst effects are seen with consistent long-term use, which is why my reply answers your question of, basically "if they can do it for a debate why can't they do it 24/7/365?" the answer to that is he probably is on low-dose stimulants and a racetam like coluracetam or phenylpiracetam but you cannot give him "game day" drug levels every day that isn't how drugs work that causes side effects to get worse.
>This man controls the FDA after all.
I want to make one small, but very important point. Biden doesn't control the FDA. He has to go through his Senate-confirmed cabinet member if he wants to give them orders. He can fire his cabinet member, but then the Senate needs to confirm a new one.
This is an important point because Trump and Republicans currently want to expand the presidents power to give him direct control over every agency in the executive branch, including law enforcement.
That is the law on paper, that ignores how 99.9% of things a president wants done get done: soft power and influence.
If you are a navy medical corpsman attending to the president, he is your boss' boss' boss' boss, you are going to be very circumspect about any refusals to obey his wishes. On top of that, there are national security implications of the president's mental performance
Likewise he has the personal cell phone of the man who oversees the guy who is the boss of the guy who maintains the prescription drug control list for DC, they can conveniently "lose" the paperwork on how many scripts the president is getting for valium or aderall and from how many doctors.
All prescribing authority ultimately flows down from institutions he controls, even if they are independent on paper in practice he has a great deal of influence.
There is no distinction to be made between having a cabinet member between the president and the agency in terms of authority.
>He has to go through his Senate-confirmed cabinet member if he wants to give them orders.
What makes you think that? What weird rule do you think exists that if the President calls the FDA Director and says "do X" that the Director is going to say, "Hold on, Mr. President, let me clear this with your subordinate"? No. He will wonder why it came directly from the top, but he will execute it regardless.
The Secretaries exist to help manage the myriad of agencies that make up the executive branch. The POTUS is still the boss. He is the CEO of a very large corporation. If your CEO leans over your desk and says "do X right now". Even if you know your boss won't be happy, you better get to stepping.
This, of course, assumes the order is a lawful one.
>There is no distinction to be made between having a cabinet member between the president and the agency in terms of authority.
If that was true then Nixon would have succeeded in covering up his crimes by firing his investigator directly.
Do you believe the president can unilaterally order an FCC employee to revoke a broadcasting license? Do you think they should have that power?
>What makes you think that?
You have a point in that I can't point to the specific rule. Maybe I'm mistaken, but then why would Nixon have had to order his Attorney General to fire his investigator instead of just doing it himself?
Also, Trump floated an executive order before he left office that never took effect. It would have allowed him to fire anyone in the executive branch departments. This seems to indicate that he did not have that power already
>No. He will wonder why it came directly from the top, but he will execute it regardless.
I would hope not. That gives the president dictator-like authority.
>The Secretaries exist to help manage the myriad of agencies that make up the executive branch. The POTUS is still the boss.
The POTUS can fire his cabinet members but can't replace them without Senate approval, because the Cabinet serves as a check on the president's power. They manage the employees under them and through the 25th amendment they have the power and responsibility to declare the president unfit or unable to serve if that's the case.
A lot of your reply is covered by the last line of mine. I will address the parts that aren't.
>but then why would Nixon have had to order his Attorney General to fire his investigator instead of just doing it himself?
Have to? Or choose to? Why do politicians do anything a certain way? Usually, the answer is: optics.
>It would have allowed him to fire anyone in the executive branch departments. This seems to indicate that he does not have that power.
He should be able to fire just about anyone in the executive. I am sure there are exceptions, though. What is sure is that he can't just order himself power he doesn't already have. All his power is granted by the Constitution or by Congress. He can't artificially create more. Hence, it never taking effect.
What I suspect is that he was trying to get rid of positions, not just people (like when he kept saying he was gonna cut the IRS in half). That isn't within his power since every bit of the executive is, again, created by the Constitution or Congress. You need a law to downsize, not an EO. But pesky things like the way government works doesn't stop politicians from making bombastic claims.
>because the Cabinet serves as a check on the president's power
No. They are not a check at all. Well, no more so than any other government employee is. The check on his power is the Constitution. Which government employees take an oath to uphold. A Secretary has no more authority to contradict the President than a White House staffer does. They have the exact same requirements. Constitution first, President second.
>They manage the employees under them and through the 25th amendment they have the power and responsibility to declare the president **unfit** or unable to serve if that's the case.
Unfit? Where do you see in the 25th Amendment that they can declare him unfit?
The idea that the VP/Cabinet can "no confidence" the President out of the way (aka mutiny) is untested legal theory from the movies.
They can declare he is unable (physically/mentally incapable) to get the VP appointed as President beyond an acting capacity. He can declare he is capable in response if he can. Then it goes to Congress to decide (aka impeachment).
They have no power to contradict him. When Secretaries dislike what the President tells them to do, they have two options: resign or get canned.
>Have to? Or choose to? Why do politicians do anything a certain way? Usually, the answer is: optics.
If the president is able to fire any employee in the executive branch, then why did Trump have to create an executive order to give himself that power?
Here's the executive order: [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202000792/pdf/DCPD-202000792.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202000792/pdf/DCPD-202000792.pdf)
If you read through it, you can see the president is not able to hire and fire those employees at will and the order is trying to change that:
>Pursuant to my authority under section 3302(1) of title 5, United States Code, I find that conditions of good administration make necessary an exception to the competitive hiring rules and examinations for career positions
Biden reversed the order as soon as he got into office.
If the president can hire and fire anyone they feel like in the executive branch without following the rules and procedures, it will greatly expand their practical power over citizens.
>No. They are not a check at all. Well, no more so than any other government employee is.
The Constitution by itself is not a check on power. It's just a document that can't take any action. It may contain details on the checks and balances, but it requires people to carry them out and it specifies who those people are.
>A Secretary has no more authority to contradict the President than a White House staffer does.
All of them have authority to contradict the president. We've seen people resign in protest before for that reason.
>Unfit? Where do you see in the 25th Amendment that they can declare him unfit?
Section 4 of the 25th:
>Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
It seems like our only point of disagreement here is whether this ability counts as a "check" on the president.
>They have no power to contradict him. When Secretaries dislike what the President tells them to do, they have two options: resign or get canned.
There is no law requiring they obey all of the presidents orders. They can contradict the president, it's just that the president can fire his cabinet secretaries for any reason.
But then he has to get the new secretary that will manage the department's staff appointed by the Senate.
>If the president is able to fire any employee in the executive branch, then why did Trump have to create an executive order to give himself that power?
I think you fundamentally misunderstand that EO. When I read it, I see him directing Department/Agency heads to draft policies to address poor performance in long-serving officials. Sort of how a University might do to get rid of shitty professors with tenure.
Read the general provisions paragraph (the last one). He is not creating a new power. Because, as I said before, he can't. There is nothing in that EO that reads as giving authority to the president that he didn't already have.
>If the president can hire and fire anyone they feel like in the executive branch without following the rules and procedures, it will greatly expand their practical power over citizens.
It is virtually identical to how it works in a corporation (because they follow the same laws). You can be terminated by your boss for a variety of reasons and, depending on your contract, may be entitled to severance benefits, etc. But you can be fired if they have cause. Refusing to do your job is usually a good cause. Secretaries are executive-level managers. Just because the CEO of Boeing doesn't personally fire the mechanic that failed to tighten the bolts doesn't mean that the CEO of Boeing CAN'T fire him.
There are very few positions within the executive branch that hold a power or authority that isn't directly derived from the authority invested in the President himself. The only ones that I can think of would be the IG off the top of my head. Because they also derive authority from the Legislative. This would presumably extend to Special Counsel as well. But, he can fire the guy that can fire the IG/Counsel, so it might as well be the same thing.
>All of them have authority to contradict the president. We've seen people resign in protest before for that reason.
They have the freedom to, not the authority. Once you voice dissent, you are gone. That isn't exercising authority. Authority is power given.
>It seems like our only point of disagreement here is whether this ability counts as a "check" on the president.
No. Our point of disagreement is that you think the word "unfit" is in there. Unfit can be a moral assessment, unable can not. There is a reason for the word choice. Unfit would be a check on power. Unable isn't. With the sole and only exception of cognitive impairment. A cognitively impaired person might still believe they can do a job that everyone is telling them they can't. That is the only example I can thing of where someone might be able but declared unable. That isn't about subjective differences of opinion. It is about removing someone who is objectively unable to exercise critical thinking.
>There is no law requiring they obey all of the presidents orders.
It is actually in the oath they swear to uphold. It is required that everyone in the civil service (there is one exception, the President takes a different oath) take that oath.
>They can contradict the president, it's just that the president can fire his cabinet secretaries for any reason.
Yes, they have freedom speech still.
>But then he has to get the new secretary that will manage the department's staff appointed by the Senate.
Yeah, but it isn't like the world stops. An UnderSecretary takes over while pending the Senate confirmation of a new appointee and whatever the President wanted gets done.
Usually, when Secretaries resign, it is to fall on the sword, so to speak. It is exceedingly rare that it is due to policy disagreement. But I am sure it has happened.
exactly, it may not be a formal order but if the president tells him to tell someone so far further down the org chart there are clouds between the two of them to 'lose' the paperwork on the president's doctor's over-prescription that's going to happen.
>exactly, it may not be a formal order but if the president tells him to tell someone so far further down the org chart there are clouds between the two of them to 'lose' the paperwork on the president's doctor's over-prescription that's going to happen.
That's just corruption, not an official power of the president.
Off-label uses of stimulants among older adults include the **treatment of depression, poststroke recovery, motor function, and fatigue**. This increase in use has been reported despite concerns regarding cardiovascular (CV) safety. US NIH Oct 25, 2021
>dementia is a group of conditions characterized by impairment of at least two brain functions, such as memory loss and judgment.
Again, do you have a source showing that meth can negate dementia?
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20736422/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20736422/)
# Use of psychostimulants in patients with dementia
Dolder, Davis, McKinsey, Et. Al.
TLDR summary-- you have to carefully select patients and it doesn't work for all of them all the time, but the use of these drugs for this purpose is increasing,.
> Conclusions: Based on limited studies, methylphenidate is a possible treatment for apathy in patients with dementia. Psychostimulants, as a group, do not appear to be broadly effective treatments for *behavioral or cognitive symptoms of dementia*. The potential utility of psychostimulants must be balanced with careful patient selection.
Doesn't seem like it improves cognitive function at all. Do you have a better source?
Results: Twenty-nine papers met all the eligibility criteria. The results are encouraging as 81.5% of the studies showed clinical improvement of the investigated condition.
[https://www.eurekaselect.com/article/101306](https://www.eurekaselect.com/article/101306)
This is a summary of that study:
[https://www.verywellhealth.com/adhd-drugs-for-alzheimers-disease-5705808](https://www.verywellhealth.com/adhd-drugs-for-alzheimers-disease-5705808)
Amphetamine Use in the Elderly: A Systematic Review of the Literature
That isn't a meta analysis on dementia, just on elderly patients with a large variety of conditions. It concludes that it's generally helpful, but doesn't really get into cognition at all and none of the results are the miraculous temporary recovery suggested by the conspiracy
I am not claiming a miraculous temporary recovery.
I am claiming that the use of performance enhancing drugs is ubiquitous in politics has been for ages and that this is becoming more and more common in medicine.
Also you are making a fundamental error. We do not know he is diagnosed with Alzheimers or anything else specific. age-related cognitive decline and alzheimers are not synonymous. Low energy levels and alzheimers are not synonymous.
I am claiming that he has age-related functional decline as all older adults do, and uses performance-enhancing drugs to conceal this from the public because he needs to protect the youthful energy of a leader not look like grandad puttering around his apartment in the senior living center.
The fact that amphetamines do not improve memory function is irrelevant, his energy levels, alertness and ability to appear engaged are **also** serious issues the campaign is worried about. I have no doubt he's on a galaxy of anti-amyloids, racetams, non-amphetamine stimulants like modanafil, testosterone and more. I also have little doubt there are amphetamines in that cocktail just like they were for JFK.
> I am claiming that the use of performance enhancing drugs is ubiquitous in politics has been for ages and that this is becoming more and more common in medicine.
So Trump will also surely be on them for the debate then, right?
>Are you concerned at all about convicted felon Donald trump so taking these stimulants given his mental state that everyone has seen
Which is FAR superior to Bidens... although not preferable.
Hence why many on the right wanted a drug test for the debate. If either candidate can't stand and talk for 2 hours without drugs in their system they shouldn't be president
Thats what you say all the time. However there is being put a lot of effort in beforehand to pretend that if Biden performs better than Trump it has to be drugs.
Seems more like cope to me.
I didn't, I said it's possible. these are the classes of drugs that would be used to accomplish something like this.
On a daily basis he probably uses modanafil and a racetam but again, that's just conjecture about what classes of drugs do what they want to do.
My counter argument is that on a daily basis he is probably perfectly fine, but only has trouble when on camera due to stress. I get stressful and tongue-tied on camera, why wouldn't a president?
Assuming he is on any drugs other than typical medical stuff is just fantasy. Meaning, "on a daily basis" he is probably doing whatever your fantasies need to dream up.
Drug use by politicians is an open secret, JFK was on tons of drugs, Trump's doctor almost lost his license for overprescribing controlled substances, They have a whole medical unit set up in Maryland for the president's exclusive use.
If you think we don't medically manage our leaders the way they do elite athletes that is the real fantasy here. It beggars belief to think the most extensive and expensive medical system on earth, given a totally blank check to treat a very important person in the best possible standard with money being no object, would not do so.
He obviously wasn’t medicated. Modafinil is a much more reasonable alternative. The side effects are fewer in that it mainly targets the frontal cortex (ie far fewer CV risks)
I don’t think, then again taking care of the brain is key. Biden is 81 and flying across time zones, having to function at a high level. In my opinion he should be safely medicated.
I would agree, given the stakes if he was totally unmedicated that actually wouldn't be very responsible.
There's some perfectly safe very-well-tolerated drugs for brain health and performance like coluracetam, centrophenoxine ("Lucidril") and modanafil which can safely compensate for mental deficits.
in fact college kids pop it like candy but the only actual patiennt population racetams have shown to help concretely are the elderly and epileptic (in fact a racetam called Keppra is as close as there is to a magic bullet for some kinds of brain electrical disorder and is so safe they put stroke patients on it as a preventative).
I’ve only seen it used in seizures, but yes, the Keppra is very well tolerated. It can be difficult to get a RX for modafinil since it’s controlled. I’m lucky because my doc is pretty liberal with the meds. On the other hand you can get generic modafinil online with a little bit of searching. I’ve never seen estimates but it’s got to be widely used. I’ve never heard of anyone ending up in the ed from a modafinil related issue.
It's probably the same reason we don't like it when athletes dope up before a game. You aren't seeing their true baseline skill.
Do we want people to get better? Yes. Do we want people to project strength and capability when it is not the baseline but a temporary fix for appearances and behind the scenes there is rapid decline? No.
I'm hoping that one of the side effects from these last two administrations is that America collectively wants a younger president.
This is the longest string of comments concerning a Presidential health situation I have ever seen from people hijacking and hunting for sources as they type to declare on a subject they can't seem grasp.
Simple. It is rhetoric. People see that Joe is mentally waning past the scope of running a nation. Call it cognitive decline, dementia, whatever.
95%+ don't know what to call it, so they have heard the word 'dementia' and use it. In their mind they are sincere. Their point remains the same. He is not the first to have these symptoms, only the most visible.
The left knows all this and will keep him as long as they can keep him doing their will.
As conscientious Conservatives, liberals, independents, etc, you are fighting the leftist, not an old man who won't go away. Fight their program.....if you haven't forgotten what it is. It is staring you in the face.
Oh yes. Remember the baggy of coke they found 'laying around' in a Whitehouse cubby hole.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
are we pretending we dont know about Dr feel good and JFK? or do we not know?
this is not a new idea that people in power have access to medications and medical treatment that normal doctors do not prescribe normal people.
>this is not a new idea that people in power have access to medications and medical treatment that normal doctors do not prescribe normal people.
Are you positing previously unknown drugs that only the elites have access to?
In this case a dementia reversing drug?
you are really just not understanding.
There are no miracle drugs.
You are basically asking "if a college student can pull an all-nighter for an exam, why do humans sleep at all?"
If you dope someone to the gills you can get them through A DAY in public. This is not a sustainable way to use medication.
Republicans aren't accusing Joe of merely being tired (outside of childish nicknames) they are accusing him of having dementia. Of being a vegetable.
I'm unaware of any drugs that reverse dementia, even temporarily.
I posit that they have bit down hard on fabricated right wing videos and a narrative that they gleefully wallow in and when reality disappoints them, they invent a fantasy drug rather than question their cherished narrative.
no one is even talking about a "miracle drug" we're talking about speed and testosterone.
No one in the mainstream is claiming he has some crazy adrenochrome immortality drug.
We, and every commentator I've heard talk about this, are just saying he's on normal, everyday drugs. We are not claiming they can reverse his mental decline, we are claiming they can zoot him up enough to fool the public, our claim is we're one step away from Weekend At Bernies being our de facto model of government, with a president who can only appear with it in public thanks to the fact they load him up with heavy-duty drugs and have his aides carefully coordinate things to hide his poor functioning.
> our claim is we're one step away from Weekend At Bernies being our de facto model of government, with a president who can only appear with it in public thanks to the fact they load him up with heavy-duty drugs
Do you realize this sounds incredibly silly to the average person?
>We, and every commentator I've heard talk about this, are just saying he's on normal, everyday drugs. We are not claiming they can reverse his mental decline, we are claiming they can zoot him up enough to fool the public, our claim is we're one step away from Weekend At Bernies being our de facto model of government, with a president who can only appear with it in public thanks to the fact they load him up with heavy-duty drugs and have his aides carefully coordinate things to hide his poor functioning.
And you're doing this based on what evidence?
Without said evidence Occam's Razor would indicate that Biden isn't nearly as incapacitated as Republicans have convinced themselves and the (completely unsupported) accusations of drug use are a coping mechanism to continue their cruel narrative.
>And you're doing this based on what evidence?
The historical predicant of "Dr. Feelgood" and others like him, the reality that people in power get special treatment, as well as the evidence we see with our own lying eyes.
>Without said evidence Occam's Razor would indicate that Biden isn't nearly as incapacitated as Republicans have convinced themselves
i would agree, but its not like he's as he was 20 years ago. he seems like my grandfather who's 91 and suffering the cognitive decline taht comes with, but he doesn't have the stress of being preisdnate so its not nearly as bad as Biden seems to be.
I dont think he has Dementia, i also think its Crazy to claim he has suffered no cognitive decline since he was elected VP in 2008
>The historical predicant of "Dr. Feelgood" and others like him, the reality that people in power get special treatment, as well as the evidence we see with our own lying eyes.
So no actual evidence. You're just listing irrelevant historical references and confirmation bias to solidify a preferred narrative.
I don’t have any evidence that Biden is on drugs. I also don’t have any evidence trump is on drugs and you can’t convince me he isn’t doped to the gills. I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibilities that Biden is doped simply because side I know trump is.
>So no actual evidence
this is evidence, its called Historical precedent, institutional corruption and observation.
You dont agree with the conclusions people are drawing, so you discredit the evidence rather than the claim.
what have i said, quote it, that you disagree with exactly?
>what have i said, quote it, that you disagree with exactly?
Ok.
>this is evidence, its called Historical precedent, institutional corruption and observation.
>You dont agree with the conclusions people are drawing, so you discredit the evidence rather than the claim.
Warren G Harding was famously stupid and corrupt. Based on that historical precedent, Trump is stupid and corrupt.
>Are you positing previously unknown drugs that only the elites have access to?
No I'm telling you, it is know that people in power can get access to drugs, either off label usage, unapproved combinations or illegal cocktails, to amplify their performance.
A simple search will fill this in: "JFK Dr Feel good" his name was Max Jacobson. read up on him before you respond.
This is a well documented issue specifically with JFK due to his health issues when he was president. Hitler is another example, Anthony Eaton the UK PM is a 3rd. outside of world leaders many celebrities, Marilyn Monroe is the biggest example due to her connection to JFK
I'm not positing anything, I'm telling you facts of history that we know occurred. so I'm confused why this idea is puzzling, when the principal is almost as old as pharmacology. its called "VIP medicine," again worth a look up.
did you not know about this?
Some insightful information I found:
> By May 1962, Jacobson had visited the White House to treat the president thirty-four times,[14][15] although such treatments were stopped by President Kennedy's White House physicians, who realized the inappropriate use of steroids and amphetamines administered by Jacobson.[16] It was later observed that President Kennedy's leadership, specifically during the Cuban Missile Crisis and other events during 1963, improved greatly once Jacobson's treatments were discontinued and replaced by a medically appropriate regimen.
And then there's this:
> When he began treating Mickey Mantle in late September 1961 for a case of the flu, Jacobson's injection into Mantle's hip caused a severe abscessing septic infection at the injection site that hospitalized Mantle and threatened his career.
And finally:
> in 1972, Jacobson was charged with unprofessional conduct and fraud in 1973. He eventually lost his medical license in 1975. Jacobson died in December 1979, without regaining his license.
You are correct that powerful people can access treatment plans that others have no access to or even knowledge about, but that's because they can source nut-job doctors who prescribe questionable things that no ethical doctor would ever do.
Having access to "yes-men" or "mad-scientist" doctors is the opposite of how you're using VIP medicine (it's literally less safe and less reliable). Dr. Feel Good could've just as easily killed JFK or saddled the president with a crippling drug addiction, just like he fucked up Mickey Mantle.
Unsurprisingly, Trump also had his own yes-man doctor who would commit fraud at the behest of the President and lie about his fitness, but it didn't make Trump any healthier.
>You are correct that powerful people can access treatment plans that others have no access to or even knowledge about, **but that's because they can source nut-job doctors who prescribe questionable things that no ethical doctor would ever do**
100%
>Dr. Feel Good could've just as easily killed JFK or saddled the president with a crippling drug addiction
last i saw their is evidence he did
>Unsurprisingly, Trump also had his own yes-man doctor who would commit fraud at the behest of the President and lie about his fitness, but it didn't make Trump any healthier.
100%.
i think they both do it because both are terrified of looknig their age, Old as FUCK. people who accuse one side and deny their own annoy the fuck outa me
>did you not know about this?
What I don't know about, and what nobody can seem to tell me, is what drug or drugs can counteract dementia.
JFK has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
>JFK has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
He absolutely does, it's VIP medicine that people are talking about in relation to Joe Bidens cognitive decline, which does not look to me like Dementia to me, just cognitive decline common in your mid to late 80s.
You seem to be fixating on your gotcha, ""what drug or drugs can counteract dementia?" becuase nothing cures dementia, and we both know that. we also both know many drugs can mask the symptoms of cognitive decline in your 80s while not cure it, at lest we do if your in good faith.
hey new guy,
>You seem to be fixating on your gotcha, ""what drug or drugs can counteract dementia?" becuase nothing cures dementia, and we both know that. W**e also both know many drugs can mask the symptoms of cognitive decline in your 80s while not cure it, at lest we do if your in good faith.**
thanks for making my point for me
is it your opinion that no drug can mask the symptoms of cognitive decline?
What?!?!
>The fact that conservatives believe this is happening only raises more questions for me.
Are you sure that conservatives believe this because it is literally the first time I have ever heard this mentioned...?
That's not quite what you said.
Trump is simply saying that Biden is on drugs not that they magically make all of his symptoms go away.
I think it is a reasonable belief that Biden probably is on some sort of drugs.
Just like it was a pretty reasonable belief that Trump was doing some screwy shit on his taxes.
That is why Biden will not take a drug test and that is why Trump did not want to release his taxes.
This is basically "The card says moops" argument.
Trump and allies have definitely accused Biden of having dementia in the past. Obviously the underlying point to saying he's taking drugs before the debate is that *off of those drugs he would have dementia symptoms and would not be able to perform.*
This is a whole sidestep to the question anyway - If I concede the point that Biden is taking some kind of medication (drugs) to treat cognitive issues that might affect a debate performance, why is that a bad thing? Logically it would make sense for him to take it to help with other non-debate presidential duties as well. So then what is actually the issue?
>This is a whole sidestep to the question anyway - If I concede the point that Biden is taking some kind of medication (drugs) to treat cognitive issues that might affect a debate performance, why is that a bad thing? Logically it would make sense for him to take it to help with other non-debate presidential duties as well. So then what is actually the issue?
I think the problem is that many of those medications have side effects from long-term use.
Lots of people with pain take oxycodone to help them deal with it and are fine. But very nearly all of those drugs have long-term side effects if you continue taking them. If he is on a regiment of various drugs to keep his mental decline in check. The concern is that there will be lots of side effects that eventually take hold.
>So then what is actually the issue?
My honest opinion is that its trying to preemptively explain any good debate performance of Biden.
all drugs have side effects, the more powerful the drug the more potent the side effects.
We prefer our leaders to have only whatever crippling personality disorders lead them to want to be a politician in the first place altering their thinking, not a cocktail of psychoactive drugs as well.
>So then what is actually the issue?
Those drugs probably aren't good for him and the people have a right to know if the leader of the free world needs drugs to stay cogent
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wouldn't say it's most likely but they're all related drugs, they're functionally equivalent when used therapeutically. dextroamphetamine, racemic amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylphenidate, they all do about the same thing in medical doses as a pill. The important part of Pervitin was that it combined opiates and amphetamines and it's likely he takes both.
What makes it likely? Opiates are well know to impair cognition. Stimulants treat fatigue and ADHD, they have never been demonstrated to treat dementia or major cognitive impairment. Can you link any research that they do treat Alzheimer’s or major cognitive impairment?
I don't think you're looking at this right.
It's not about "alzheimers" the specific condition and its ICD diagnostic criteria.
It's about him appearing unpresidential.
The off-label use of opiates to allow leaders to appear more energetic, happy, confident and unshaken is super common. It has been since these drugs were invented, Trump also took them, in fact his doctor may lose his license for overprescribing them, we know many other politicians have as well, from JFK to Nixon to Trump.
Opiates are sedatives, they depress cognitive function making people appear more sleepy and fatigued. The can make people appear more calm and relaxed but do the opposite of energize people. Why would Biden want to appear more sedated?
No. There's nothing they can give him to cure his senility. But they can speed him up a little bit so he doesn't fall asleep and he looks a little more alert. They couldn't do this all the time because it wouldn't be healthy. But one shot of an amphetamine wouldn't kill him.
>The fact that conservatives believe this is happening only raises more questions for me.
I think they have him on the Manhattan project of uppers combined with a week of "prep" to get him on the perfect sleep schedule instead of a normal human sleep schedule so that he doesn't fall asleep before it starts.
>So you think he's on a ton of uppers, and he's sleeping a lot?
I think they're changing his sleep schedule not just that he sleeps a lot. I bet he won't get up till an hour or two before the debate.
But yea. Uppers and sleep schedule changes. As well as likely having all the questions beforehand like they did with Hillary which certainly helps with your prepared responses
Isn’t a “perfect sleep schedule” a positive thing. Healthy sleep is important for health and neglected by many. Uppers don’t magically restructure a demented brain into functioning again, they just increase alertness and energy. How would stimulants fix the underlying damage in memory retrieval and executive function?
>Isn’t a “perfect sleep schedule” a positive thing.
Not when your "perfect sleep schedule" for the debate is drastically different than the sleep schedule of a normal human and of the need of the presidency. Not if you have to take a week away from the white house to do it.
>How would stimulants fix the underlying damage in memory retrieval and executive function?
The same way music let's people access memories they can't access when they're old. The memories are there the cognitive function just isn't always. The same way you remember more sometimes and less others.
Get your coffee and sleep in and you're good. Just in bidens case coffee is like some legit uppers and the sleep needed is likely sleep until 2 hours before the like 9pm debate
Sleeping too much or too little hurts cognitive function. There is an optimal range of sleep that is well studied in medicine. Why would normal optimal sleep (e.g. 7-9 hrs) be a bad thing?
Stimulants can’t magically regrow damaged cognitive circuits. Music can trigger memory associations like any other association, music cannot make a demented patient in an Alzheimer’s unit suddenly debate ready.
Is there any evidence to your claims or is it purely speculation?
>Sleeping too much or too little hurts cognitive function. There is an optimal range of sleep that is well studied in medicine. Why would normal optimal sleep (e.g. 7-9 hrs) be a bad thing?
It's not that's not what I'm saying... please don't be obtuse. It's about WHEN that sleep is. Getting 7-9 hours of sleep and waking up at 3pm isn't acceptable for the president of the US. Or for me at my job.
>Stimulants can’t magically regrow damaged cognitive circuits. Music can trigger memory associations like any other association, music cannot make a demented patient in an Alzheimer’s unit suddenly debate ready.
Where did I say alzheimers? He's just old.
Are you saying they are shifting normal sleep hours to wake at 3 pm as some type of cognitive enhancement method? Stimulants don’t reverse cognitive aging as well they increase alertness and attention, and tens of millions of Americans use them daily for the same purpose
>Are you saying they are shifting normal sleep hours to wake at 3 pm as some type of cognitive enhancement method?
Do you not think the longer the day goes on the more tired Joe gets? That if he's been up since even 10 am he wouldn't start to slow down by 5?
He wouldn't make it to 9pm for the debates. So they'll shift his sleep schedule over the week so his peak hours are debate time. Yes.
That's not controversial to say people perform better when they're not as tired. Difference is, Joe is tired by lunch. The rest of us would be able to do a normal day and then debate at 8 or 9.
Also, Joe needs that attention boost. He wanders off and loses his thoughts far too often. That's part of the whole mental decline thing. Stimulants, as you just said, help that
Don’t most people get more tired as the day goes on and why is shifting a sleep schedule a huge controversy even if is it purely speculative? As long as he is getting adequate sleep I fail to see how this is nefarious
It wouldn't be. The problem is no such medication exists - the problem is the best they have is medicine that can make him somewhat more cognitive, and only for a brief period of time. Worse, I imagine if they're pumping him full of this stuff frequently, it's gotta be having some kind of negative impact on his health, and no doubt has exacerbated his condition considerably over the last several years.
I don't like Biden, don't get me wrong, but even I'm kind of disturbed by the idea that this guy is basically being pumped full of drugs and hauled around to put him in front of people like some kind of show or something. However shitty he was as a person before his brain turned to mush, I wouldn't wish that kind of treatment on anyone.
this is something I had not considered you're used to thinking of leaders as leaders not as men.
That is some existential nightmare fuel stuff, the idea of being dragged around, stuff shoved in your face to sign, and you this to read to that camera, and you are mostly unaware of what you're even doing.
Joe Biden spends most of his time being hidden from the public. When he is in the public, he is being ferried around by handlers who have to guide him to make sure he doesn't get lost. Even with their help, he often seems to manage to wander off in the middle of conversations, to completely lose track of a conversation mid-conversation and need frequent reminders. When he walks he often seems to shuffle like some kind of roomba. The man slurs his speech, screws up massive meetings and conferences, and barely seems to know where he is at any given time. A former Presidential physician even pointed concern saying that given Biden's behavior and how little he shows himself in Public paints a worrying image of his mental health.
I mean Joe literally got up and wandered off during a live interview once.
At this point trying to insist that his brain isn't mush is just willful ignorance and denial.
You don’t believe there’s drugs yet not yet on the market? In my opinion, we are at least 70 years more advanced than they let on to the public- Yes that includes cancer treatment.
Wait, are we admitting Joe Biden has dementia symptoms now?
Anyway, I still wouldn't want cognizant Joe Biden as President because I don't agree with his politics and I think he's corrupt. But I guess that would be better than a dementia patient whose politics I used to not agree with when he had a functioning brain?
Hypotheticals like this kind of bother me. I'm not sure why... But it just strikes me as useless pontificating. "If reality was totally different, wouldn't you have a different opinion?" Yeah I would. But it isn't. So... what?
I think you misunderstand the point of this post.
There is no new hypothetical here. I am merely asking guestions that logically flow from the thing that conservatives are already trying to convince me of - that Joe Biden has dementia but he will take some kind of "performance enhancing" pill/drug to temporarily cure it so he can debate well against Trump.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did you ever see Awakenings with Robin Williams (which is closely based on a true story)? There are treatments you can give people to *temporarily* and dramatically improve functioning. But they can't be sustained. Similar options are available for many conditions. You can pump a seriously ill person up on steroids and cocaine for a couple of days and they'll suddenly seem okay until they drop dead. Many street drugs make you feel amazing until they don't. For what it's worth, Biden obviously does not have dementia. All the evidence suggests that he has normal, age-related cognitive decline for a man in his 80s. I have no reason to believe he is being given any medication, but there are plenty of things you can give someone that make them temporarily sharper and more focused (like Adderall).
In real life, the condition wasn't dementia, it was *encephalitis lethargica*. Speaking from my personal relationships with people with dementia, the damaged parts of the brain don't come back, not even temporarily. Depending on the person, there are meds that can slow the degeneration and help people cope with the changes, but there's nothing that can restore what has been lost.
>In real life, the condition wasn't dementia, it was *encephalitis lethargica*. Yes, and your point is what? >Speaking from my personal relationships with people with dementia When you say dementia, do you mean Alzheimer's? Most people referring to Biden having "dementia" are using that term quite loosely to be "cognitive impairment." As I said above, in Biden's case, that's probably just ordinary age-related decline and he's actually sharper than most people I know in their 80s. There are many drugs that temporarily boost cognitive function: amphetamines, eugeroics, methylphenidate (Ritalin), etc. All of these also have a lot of abuse potential.
One point, for sure, is that you shouldn't use movies to diagnose people, even when the "patient" is the incomparable actor, Robert DeNiro. Another point is that the diseases that cause dementia typically cause physical deterioration of the brain, which doesn't heal. *Encephalitis lethargica* is an extremely rare condition that causes catatonia and Parkinsonism, but not dementia. Caffeine boosts cognitive function, too, but it isn't going to stimulate parts of the brain that are gone.
You're obviously not reading what I'm writing, so I'm not going to continue.
I believe parts of what you are saying to be true. The reality of dementia is you can't disguise someone with a bombed-out brain, no matter what you can accomplish with their alertness and mood. My friend and I planted irises a few years ago, then dementia set in and it took a year to get her on some great meds, memantine and donepezil. My friend can now admire the "purple flowers" comfortably, but aphasia got the word "iris" and she has no memory of planting them. Believing that you can hide dementia with pills or shots is not credible, in my experience and I have read nothing to support that either.
I'll try one more time. I think you're trying to talk about Alzheimer's when you say "dementia", right? When people say "Biden has dementia" they don't mean (except, maybe, for some crazies) that Biden has Alzheimer's. They mean "Biden is displaying cognitive impairment of some kind."
I'm glad we agree that Biden doesn't have a degenerative brain disease. What cognitive impairment have you observed? His speech at the SOU went two hours. It was cogent and well-reviewed, even by detractors.
>His speech at the SOU went two hours. It was cogent and well-reviewed, even by detractors. You know presidents don't write their own speeches, right? He was reading it. No one is seriously suggesting that he's declined to a point where he can't read. >What cognitive impairment have you observed? When you compare Biden's public appearances today to when he was VP, you can see that he's much more forgetful and less sharp. The Wall Street Journal had a [long report](https://archive.is/L4WKz) on this recently. I think an even stronger tell is the fact that he avoids interviews, press conferences, and other unscripted interactions. This is a guy who's famous for liking that stuff, so there's some reason he's not doing it.
He's older, certainly, and octogenarians slow down. Hard for me to offer more when your source is paywalled. [Biden did a press conference 12 days ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiLgGjFzcV4), and he expressed a thorough and deep understanding of what's going on in Ukraine. And Gaza. See 19:41. Even though the topic was not Gaza, and even though he complained about the reporter's question, he still managed to provide a thorough answer. Seems like he can still handle spontaneity just fine. So, no, I do not know what you are talking about when you suggest he avoids press conferences and unscripted interactions.
>What cognitive impairment have you observed? Countless word salad, gibberish statements. Plenty of videos of him clearly zoinked out or appearing lost. Forgetting he just got his hand shaken. > It was cogent and well-reviewed, even by detractors. He couldn't even say Laiken Riley. Dude did start strong, but was out of it by the end. That's part of why people say the whole "on uppers" thing. They were wearing off after the first hour when most people tune out that aren't politicos who have already made their mind up
> Countless word salad, gibberish statements. As I said, he did just fine for two straight hours at the SOU, you're going to have to do a little better than "people say" he was on uppers. >Laiken Riley You know that Biden has a stutter, right? "People say" he didn't show any cognitive impairment, nor did he show signs of drug use.
>I think you're trying to talk about Alzheimer's when you say "dementia", right? You are insistent on this point, and I don't understand why. You do know that there are other kinds of dementia, right? Not all dementia is Alzheimers. Alzheimers accounts for 60-80% of dementia, but vascular dementia is still dementia. Dementia is separate from normal slight age related cognitive decline. You seem right on everything else, just oddly focused on this one minor detail.
>You do know that there are other kinds of dementia, right? Not all dementia is Alzheimers. Alzheimers accounts for 60-80% of dementia, but vascular dementia is still dementia. Yes, and the relevant medical treatment varies based on cause. If you look up dementia [in the dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dementia), you get: >a usually progressive condition (such as Alzheimer's disease) marked by the development of multiple cognitive deficits (such as memory impairment, aphasia, and the inability to plan and initiate complex behavior) And that's what people mean when Biden has dementia; that he is experiencing cognitive decline. Not that he meets the formal diagnostic criteria for any particular condition or disease. >You are insistent on this point, and I don't understand why. Because OP and others in this thread appear to be completely misinterpreting the concerns about Biden.
>Because OP and others in this thread appear to be completely misinterpreting the concerns about Biden. I am not sure that's true. There seem to be some people who genuinely believe he's deeply affected by dementia. Like doesn't recognize loved ones level affected. Others have different concerns, but there are some people who really think he's fully incapacitated.
>I'll try one more time. I used to think the whole thing about some people not being capable of understanding higher thinking and hypotheticals that goes like this.... "imagine you didn't eat breakfast this morning how would you feel...?" "But i did eat breakfast this morning" ... was bs but sometimes man, and a few times recently on this sub, I'm more convcined it's not bs.
It's the main problem I have with this sub along with reading comprehension.
This is a good point. I think people mistake dementia for a disease but it is only a diagnosis for unspecified cognitive decline, temporary or permanent. I do believe Biden has dementia (cognitive decline) but I see people who are percieved as completely normal and healthy that also occasionally display signs of dementia. If someone who hates Biden asks me if he has dementia, I am inclined to say no, because they do not understand anything enough about the term and just seek affirmations.
Typically, for a dementia diagnosis the issues with memory and judgement have to be severe enough to interfere with daily life.
>Speaking from my personal relationships with people with dementia, the damaged parts of the brain don't come back, not even temporarily. What about the videos and studies showing music from different times helps people recall things they otherwise couldn't? Take almost vegetative old folks and for a short while after hearing a few songs from their childhood and they're answering questions again? That's always scared me because to me that shows it's all still there they just can't access it all the time
I've noticed that with my friend...there are a few memories that are deeply rooted, but it's neither consistent or predictable. The problem with degenerative brain diseases is that parts of the container that holds the memories are simply no longer there. Old people slow down, that's not what I'm talking about. There's a difference between tapping into long-dormant neural pathways and pathways that are simply no longer present. With dementia, I don't think it's "all still there"...that's more akin to the *encephalitis lethargica* that OP mentioned, where you have catatonia. Or, since we are all about movie diseases now, the pseudocoma in *Diving Bell and the Butterfly*. That would be very scary indeed, but it's also very rare.
associative memory triggers are the one reliable way to control your memory, scent is an even more powerful trigger than sound, but both of those are superior to visual stimulus.
Also, there is often different levels of functioning depending on the time of day. Symptoms are generally worse at night, a phenomenon known as “sundowning”.
What we saw with Biden was not dementia. I totally agree. If it were, he would have never made it 90 minutes and it would have been way worse. Don’t get me wrong, it was bad. It was not the Joe of 4 years ago. It would fall more in the range of age related cognitive decline, as you mentioned. In my opinion, he would have benefitted from a low dose of modafinil. The debate was relatively late. A time when cognitive decline is more apparent. A wakefulness stimulator like modafinil, in my opinion. Could have made a difference. Low dose adderall wouldn’t have been a bad idea, the modafinil is just a bit smoother.
I work in medicine. Biden does not have dementia, but he does have age-related cognitive decline. I mean, they have constructed a replica of the debate stage, including an actor playing a Trump heckler, in order to cognitively prepare Biden for the scenario. If they had such miraculous drugs to keep Biden sharp, then they wouldn't need such elaborate preparations just to prevent him from getting confused on the day of. There are some drugs that the White House can get that aren't available in the US, like nootropics from Russia for treating cognitive decline. Vinpocetine comes to mind. This is almost never used in the US even though it has proven uses in Russia. That is to say, the WH can probably source drugs internationally, and has more latitude to do off-label prescribing. More than that, Biden has an entire medical team following him 24/7, creating and adjusting protocols, and optimizing his life style. That kind of access is going to be amazing for someone's health, but it can only do so much. Really, this election is a piece of crap. You have a geriatric meanderer who doesn't know where he is or what he's saying half the time vs. a sociopathic narcissist who will likely invoke fascist-like powers of vengeance upon his enemies and DC itself if elected. What great options! Democracy sure does look shiny these days.
Does it seem to you that Trump shows signs of dementia?
1) this medication is amphetamine, possibly methamphetamine (trade name as a drug: Desoxyn). It is freely available and if a senior was in a situation where they absolutely needed to perform at their best for a few hours and this was worth giving them a risk of heart attack, stroke, aneurysm or heart failure, they would be prescribed it. The risk is very rarely worth it for anyone, so this is not commonly done. The rules for elites are different, if Dr. Schmoe prescribed your grandad methamphetamine to get through your daughter's piano recital he could be arrested for this because it would be irresponsible and dangerous. 2) he probably does take a stimulant daily but the amounts needed to get him through a debate would kill him if used regularly. 3) amphetamines can cause psychosis, hallucinations, increased aggression, impulsivity, compulsive behavior and a host of other side effects that would be very, very scary in the leader of the free world.
Did you know that during Trump's presidency the White House had a [huge drug problem](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-white-house-drugs-speed-xanax-1234979503/)? Medication was given without much oversight, and shoddy record keeping. The WH ordered thousands of doses of a stimulant called modafinil, which is used by military pilots to stay alert during long missions. The whole "Biden is on drugs" thing is a direct projection from Trump and his staff.
I actually wrote about this in at least three other comments. Yes Trump's doctor may loose his license. Modanafil is a very benign drug though I took its prodrug form adrafinil for years for shift work disorder . It can be hard on your liver but there's none of the risks amphetamines have as it is not a stimulant and does not affect your emotions or brain really. In fact modanafil replaced amphetamine in the military precisely because it does not affect your rationality, something of prime importance when you are on a 12-hour mission carrying nuclear bombs. That said his opiates, benzodiazapines and other drugs that were dispensed to the white house were out of control, however given this was something the inside staff was totally unconcerned with that shows you how commonplace this is for politicians to have their Dr. Feelgood.
Modafinil is classified as a central nervous system stimulant and psychostimulant, and is used to keep military pilots awake. Trump is accusing Biden of taking stimulants/medication to "prop him up". Trump's WH prescribed, quite literally, thousands and thousands of modanafil pills (along with other prescription meds like xanax). Do you think that Trump might be projecting when he's accusing Biden of doing exactly what he himself has been doing?
no I don't think it's projection I think it's a tactic. he knows every politician does this, and he is making a bet that he can perform better without them than Biden does if he forces the issue
[удалено]
where did I say I was okay with it? if you only get news analysis from people that tell you what you want to hear you will be misinformed. i am explaining the likely calculus on his campaigns part. why would you come here to ask questions then use baseless insults if someone gives you a likely to be factual and neutral description of a politicians motivations?
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
It’s classified as a stimulant, but it is unique in that it is not based on amphetamines. It also does not show up in routine drug screen. It’s schedule 4 which is lightly regulated.
some classify it as a stimulant. Other people make a good case that it is a non-stimulant eugrotic, it affects wakefulness without CNS or PNS stimulation. I think on a pharmacological level this is accurate, it does not raise heart rate, blood pressure or respiratory rate which are the hallmarks of a true stimulant. It does not constrict blood vessels either, the major hallmark of non-amphetamine stimulants like cocaine and aminorexes. In any event the important part is it does not cause loss of rationality, increased aggression, hypersexuality or psychosis the way amphetamines do and I don't care about CNS profiles I care about whether the president is going to tell Kim Jong Un he's a sexual tyrannosaurus or think communists are trying to steal his DNA.
Yea, its classification is interesting. It’s a great drug. I take it myself sometimes for shift work. It’s a game changer. Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem if Joe took some here and there. Why not?
absolutely in fact if you have a job like theirs and DO NOT enhance yourself given the lives in your hands you are not being very responsible. Your ability to save american lives matters more than anything. As long as it doesn't compromise your rationality, but that's the beauty of Modanafil/adrafinil.
Right on man, we’re on the same page. You must have been an early adopter with the adrafinil. Was that a long time ago? I used modafanil for years when it was called Provigil and cost a fortune. I now use Armodafinil which is the R-isomer of modafinil. It’s about 30% more potent and comes in a 250mg tablet. In my opinion, it’s one of the best kept secrets in psychiatry.
I was, adrafinil was the first discovered in fact, its' the prodrug form of modanafil but can be hard on your liver because of it. It's a fantastic drug it got me through third shift for years. Racetams haven't ever worked for me except coluracetam which gives me the "HD vision" effect for sure, increasing visual acuity but I never felt all that much more focused. Sadly I'm a little too young to remember when you could get vasopressin. Human augmentation is a passion of mine but I have a very low risk tolerance so I stick to things that are white-market and studied as safe, or as safe as it gets. That's why I don't touch the non-amphetamine CNS stimulants or anything but the classic 80s nootropics and their well-studied analogs. Lucidril is another fantastic secret, it's a powerful anti-oxidant and that's about it. Subtle in effect but studied to increase lifespan in rats. It just improves general brain health as you age by lowering oxidative stress. Can also cause lucid dreaming, hence the name.
Cool man, thank you for the interesting info.
Biden doesn't have dementia dude is old.
Agree.
This was also an issue during the Obama administration. I read that Ronnie Jackson was pretty liberal with the meds.
>The risk is very rarely worth it for anyone, so this is not commonly done. The rules for elites are different, if Dr. Schmoe prescribed your grandad methamphetamine to get through your daughter's piano recital he could be arrested for this because it would be irresponsible and dangerous. I'm confused because I would have thought the opposite - that for the most powerful man in the world they would be more risk averse than to prescribe medication that might cause him to spontaneously have a stroke and die during a live national audience. >he probably does take a stimulant daily but the amounts needed to get him through a debate would kill him if used regularly. Do you have anything to back this up? It just seems like a convenient way to resolve these obvious contractions that I'm bringing up. >amphetamines can cause psychosis, hallucinations, increased aggression, impulsivity, compulsive behavior and a host of other side effects that would be very, very scary in the leader of the free world. Well wait, if those are the side effects then why would this be at all helpful to perform during a debate? If Joe Biden has hallucinations and psychosis, that would make for a very poor performance, wouldn't it?
Look I'm just going to say, go look up amphetamines, because I cannot explain all the effects of an entire class of drugs in a quick way on reddit that will leave no gotchas. That said to attempt to answer briefly: 1) Like I said, different rules. They have the personal power to make doctors do inadvisable things. This man controls the FDA after all. This is just how it is, at the top they live by different rules. Also they dial these things in so the risk is low, but not nonexistent. For a VIP things like wearing a continuous blood pressure monitor and having multiple doctors on standby are more practical than for Grandpa Bill. 2) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4497800/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4497800/) 3) Those are **potential** side effects. That is probably why he is at Camp David right now doctors making sure none of those are likely to happen on stage. You appear to be mistaking possible chronic side-effects for "will happen if he takes a pill and goes on stage". Most of the worst effects are seen with consistent long-term use, which is why my reply answers your question of, basically "if they can do it for a debate why can't they do it 24/7/365?" the answer to that is he probably is on low-dose stimulants and a racetam like coluracetam or phenylpiracetam but you cannot give him "game day" drug levels every day that isn't how drugs work that causes side effects to get worse.
>This man controls the FDA after all. I want to make one small, but very important point. Biden doesn't control the FDA. He has to go through his Senate-confirmed cabinet member if he wants to give them orders. He can fire his cabinet member, but then the Senate needs to confirm a new one. This is an important point because Trump and Republicans currently want to expand the presidents power to give him direct control over every agency in the executive branch, including law enforcement.
That is the law on paper, that ignores how 99.9% of things a president wants done get done: soft power and influence. If you are a navy medical corpsman attending to the president, he is your boss' boss' boss' boss, you are going to be very circumspect about any refusals to obey his wishes. On top of that, there are national security implications of the president's mental performance Likewise he has the personal cell phone of the man who oversees the guy who is the boss of the guy who maintains the prescription drug control list for DC, they can conveniently "lose" the paperwork on how many scripts the president is getting for valium or aderall and from how many doctors. All prescribing authority ultimately flows down from institutions he controls, even if they are independent on paper in practice he has a great deal of influence.
There is no distinction to be made between having a cabinet member between the president and the agency in terms of authority. >He has to go through his Senate-confirmed cabinet member if he wants to give them orders. What makes you think that? What weird rule do you think exists that if the President calls the FDA Director and says "do X" that the Director is going to say, "Hold on, Mr. President, let me clear this with your subordinate"? No. He will wonder why it came directly from the top, but he will execute it regardless. The Secretaries exist to help manage the myriad of agencies that make up the executive branch. The POTUS is still the boss. He is the CEO of a very large corporation. If your CEO leans over your desk and says "do X right now". Even if you know your boss won't be happy, you better get to stepping. This, of course, assumes the order is a lawful one.
>There is no distinction to be made between having a cabinet member between the president and the agency in terms of authority. If that was true then Nixon would have succeeded in covering up his crimes by firing his investigator directly. Do you believe the president can unilaterally order an FCC employee to revoke a broadcasting license? Do you think they should have that power? >What makes you think that? You have a point in that I can't point to the specific rule. Maybe I'm mistaken, but then why would Nixon have had to order his Attorney General to fire his investigator instead of just doing it himself? Also, Trump floated an executive order before he left office that never took effect. It would have allowed him to fire anyone in the executive branch departments. This seems to indicate that he did not have that power already >No. He will wonder why it came directly from the top, but he will execute it regardless. I would hope not. That gives the president dictator-like authority. >The Secretaries exist to help manage the myriad of agencies that make up the executive branch. The POTUS is still the boss. The POTUS can fire his cabinet members but can't replace them without Senate approval, because the Cabinet serves as a check on the president's power. They manage the employees under them and through the 25th amendment they have the power and responsibility to declare the president unfit or unable to serve if that's the case.
A lot of your reply is covered by the last line of mine. I will address the parts that aren't. >but then why would Nixon have had to order his Attorney General to fire his investigator instead of just doing it himself? Have to? Or choose to? Why do politicians do anything a certain way? Usually, the answer is: optics. >It would have allowed him to fire anyone in the executive branch departments. This seems to indicate that he does not have that power. He should be able to fire just about anyone in the executive. I am sure there are exceptions, though. What is sure is that he can't just order himself power he doesn't already have. All his power is granted by the Constitution or by Congress. He can't artificially create more. Hence, it never taking effect. What I suspect is that he was trying to get rid of positions, not just people (like when he kept saying he was gonna cut the IRS in half). That isn't within his power since every bit of the executive is, again, created by the Constitution or Congress. You need a law to downsize, not an EO. But pesky things like the way government works doesn't stop politicians from making bombastic claims. >because the Cabinet serves as a check on the president's power No. They are not a check at all. Well, no more so than any other government employee is. The check on his power is the Constitution. Which government employees take an oath to uphold. A Secretary has no more authority to contradict the President than a White House staffer does. They have the exact same requirements. Constitution first, President second. >They manage the employees under them and through the 25th amendment they have the power and responsibility to declare the president **unfit** or unable to serve if that's the case. Unfit? Where do you see in the 25th Amendment that they can declare him unfit? The idea that the VP/Cabinet can "no confidence" the President out of the way (aka mutiny) is untested legal theory from the movies. They can declare he is unable (physically/mentally incapable) to get the VP appointed as President beyond an acting capacity. He can declare he is capable in response if he can. Then it goes to Congress to decide (aka impeachment). They have no power to contradict him. When Secretaries dislike what the President tells them to do, they have two options: resign or get canned.
>Have to? Or choose to? Why do politicians do anything a certain way? Usually, the answer is: optics. If the president is able to fire any employee in the executive branch, then why did Trump have to create an executive order to give himself that power? Here's the executive order: [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202000792/pdf/DCPD-202000792.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202000792/pdf/DCPD-202000792.pdf) If you read through it, you can see the president is not able to hire and fire those employees at will and the order is trying to change that: >Pursuant to my authority under section 3302(1) of title 5, United States Code, I find that conditions of good administration make necessary an exception to the competitive hiring rules and examinations for career positions Biden reversed the order as soon as he got into office. If the president can hire and fire anyone they feel like in the executive branch without following the rules and procedures, it will greatly expand their practical power over citizens. >No. They are not a check at all. Well, no more so than any other government employee is. The Constitution by itself is not a check on power. It's just a document that can't take any action. It may contain details on the checks and balances, but it requires people to carry them out and it specifies who those people are. >A Secretary has no more authority to contradict the President than a White House staffer does. All of them have authority to contradict the president. We've seen people resign in protest before for that reason. >Unfit? Where do you see in the 25th Amendment that they can declare him unfit? Section 4 of the 25th: >Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. It seems like our only point of disagreement here is whether this ability counts as a "check" on the president. >They have no power to contradict him. When Secretaries dislike what the President tells them to do, they have two options: resign or get canned. There is no law requiring they obey all of the presidents orders. They can contradict the president, it's just that the president can fire his cabinet secretaries for any reason. But then he has to get the new secretary that will manage the department's staff appointed by the Senate.
>If the president is able to fire any employee in the executive branch, then why did Trump have to create an executive order to give himself that power? I think you fundamentally misunderstand that EO. When I read it, I see him directing Department/Agency heads to draft policies to address poor performance in long-serving officials. Sort of how a University might do to get rid of shitty professors with tenure. Read the general provisions paragraph (the last one). He is not creating a new power. Because, as I said before, he can't. There is nothing in that EO that reads as giving authority to the president that he didn't already have. >If the president can hire and fire anyone they feel like in the executive branch without following the rules and procedures, it will greatly expand their practical power over citizens. It is virtually identical to how it works in a corporation (because they follow the same laws). You can be terminated by your boss for a variety of reasons and, depending on your contract, may be entitled to severance benefits, etc. But you can be fired if they have cause. Refusing to do your job is usually a good cause. Secretaries are executive-level managers. Just because the CEO of Boeing doesn't personally fire the mechanic that failed to tighten the bolts doesn't mean that the CEO of Boeing CAN'T fire him. There are very few positions within the executive branch that hold a power or authority that isn't directly derived from the authority invested in the President himself. The only ones that I can think of would be the IG off the top of my head. Because they also derive authority from the Legislative. This would presumably extend to Special Counsel as well. But, he can fire the guy that can fire the IG/Counsel, so it might as well be the same thing. >All of them have authority to contradict the president. We've seen people resign in protest before for that reason. They have the freedom to, not the authority. Once you voice dissent, you are gone. That isn't exercising authority. Authority is power given. >It seems like our only point of disagreement here is whether this ability counts as a "check" on the president. No. Our point of disagreement is that you think the word "unfit" is in there. Unfit can be a moral assessment, unable can not. There is a reason for the word choice. Unfit would be a check on power. Unable isn't. With the sole and only exception of cognitive impairment. A cognitively impaired person might still believe they can do a job that everyone is telling them they can't. That is the only example I can thing of where someone might be able but declared unable. That isn't about subjective differences of opinion. It is about removing someone who is objectively unable to exercise critical thinking. >There is no law requiring they obey all of the presidents orders. It is actually in the oath they swear to uphold. It is required that everyone in the civil service (there is one exception, the President takes a different oath) take that oath. >They can contradict the president, it's just that the president can fire his cabinet secretaries for any reason. Yes, they have freedom speech still. >But then he has to get the new secretary that will manage the department's staff appointed by the Senate. Yeah, but it isn't like the world stops. An UnderSecretary takes over while pending the Senate confirmation of a new appointee and whatever the President wanted gets done. Usually, when Secretaries resign, it is to fall on the sword, so to speak. It is exceedingly rare that it is due to policy disagreement. But I am sure it has happened.
exactly, it may not be a formal order but if the president tells him to tell someone so far further down the org chart there are clouds between the two of them to 'lose' the paperwork on the president's doctor's over-prescription that's going to happen.
>exactly, it may not be a formal order but if the president tells him to tell someone so far further down the org chart there are clouds between the two of them to 'lose' the paperwork on the president's doctor's over-prescription that's going to happen. That's just corruption, not an official power of the president.
yes, that's correct, it's also so commonplace it's basically ubiquitous.
Even if it actually is commonplace, it would still be a bad idea to make it the official policy.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Trump's doctor may lose his license over overprescription to the white house.
You believe Biden was on a stimulant during that debate?
I think there were some signs yes, such as his dramatic improvement.
So meth can negate dementia, at least temporarily? Do you have a source?
Off-label uses of stimulants among older adults include the **treatment of depression, poststroke recovery, motor function, and fatigue**. This increase in use has been reported despite concerns regarding cardiovascular (CV) safety. US NIH Oct 25, 2021
>dementia is a group of conditions characterized by impairment of at least two brain functions, such as memory loss and judgment. Again, do you have a source showing that meth can negate dementia?
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20736422/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20736422/) # Use of psychostimulants in patients with dementia Dolder, Davis, McKinsey, Et. Al. TLDR summary-- you have to carefully select patients and it doesn't work for all of them all the time, but the use of these drugs for this purpose is increasing,.
> Conclusions: Based on limited studies, methylphenidate is a possible treatment for apathy in patients with dementia. Psychostimulants, as a group, do not appear to be broadly effective treatments for *behavioral or cognitive symptoms of dementia*. The potential utility of psychostimulants must be balanced with careful patient selection. Doesn't seem like it improves cognitive function at all. Do you have a better source?
Results: Twenty-nine papers met all the eligibility criteria. The results are encouraging as 81.5% of the studies showed clinical improvement of the investigated condition. [https://www.eurekaselect.com/article/101306](https://www.eurekaselect.com/article/101306) This is a summary of that study: [https://www.verywellhealth.com/adhd-drugs-for-alzheimers-disease-5705808](https://www.verywellhealth.com/adhd-drugs-for-alzheimers-disease-5705808)
Amphetamine Use in the Elderly: A Systematic Review of the Literature That isn't a meta analysis on dementia, just on elderly patients with a large variety of conditions. It concludes that it's generally helpful, but doesn't really get into cognition at all and none of the results are the miraculous temporary recovery suggested by the conspiracy
I am not claiming a miraculous temporary recovery. I am claiming that the use of performance enhancing drugs is ubiquitous in politics has been for ages and that this is becoming more and more common in medicine. Also you are making a fundamental error. We do not know he is diagnosed with Alzheimers or anything else specific. age-related cognitive decline and alzheimers are not synonymous. Low energy levels and alzheimers are not synonymous. I am claiming that he has age-related functional decline as all older adults do, and uses performance-enhancing drugs to conceal this from the public because he needs to protect the youthful energy of a leader not look like grandad puttering around his apartment in the senior living center. The fact that amphetamines do not improve memory function is irrelevant, his energy levels, alertness and ability to appear engaged are **also** serious issues the campaign is worried about. I have no doubt he's on a galaxy of anti-amyloids, racetams, non-amphetamine stimulants like modanafil, testosterone and more. I also have little doubt there are amphetamines in that cocktail just like they were for JFK.
> I am claiming that the use of performance enhancing drugs is ubiquitous in politics has been for ages and that this is becoming more and more common in medicine. So Trump will also surely be on them for the debate then, right?
[удалено]
absolutely, but this question was not about him.
>Are you concerned at all about convicted felon Donald trump so taking these stimulants given his mental state that everyone has seen Which is FAR superior to Bidens... although not preferable. Hence why many on the right wanted a drug test for the debate. If either candidate can't stand and talk for 2 hours without drugs in their system they shouldn't be president
Thats what you say all the time. However there is being put a lot of effort in beforehand to pretend that if Biden performs better than Trump it has to be drugs. Seems more like cope to me.
Where did you hear Biden is on meth?
I didn't, I said it's possible. these are the classes of drugs that would be used to accomplish something like this. On a daily basis he probably uses modanafil and a racetam but again, that's just conjecture about what classes of drugs do what they want to do.
My counter argument is that on a daily basis he is probably perfectly fine, but only has trouble when on camera due to stress. I get stressful and tongue-tied on camera, why wouldn't a president? Assuming he is on any drugs other than typical medical stuff is just fantasy. Meaning, "on a daily basis" he is probably doing whatever your fantasies need to dream up.
Drug use by politicians is an open secret, JFK was on tons of drugs, Trump's doctor almost lost his license for overprescribing controlled substances, They have a whole medical unit set up in Maryland for the president's exclusive use. If you think we don't medically manage our leaders the way they do elite athletes that is the real fantasy here. It beggars belief to think the most extensive and expensive medical system on earth, given a totally blank check to treat a very important person in the best possible standard with money being no object, would not do so.
He obviously wasn’t medicated. Modafinil is a much more reasonable alternative. The side effects are fewer in that it mainly targets the frontal cortex (ie far fewer CV risks)
this is true, I've taken adrafinil and I just assume every politician is on it all the time just like half the military and many IT shift workers.
I don’t think, then again taking care of the brain is key. Biden is 81 and flying across time zones, having to function at a high level. In my opinion he should be safely medicated.
I would agree, given the stakes if he was totally unmedicated that actually wouldn't be very responsible. There's some perfectly safe very-well-tolerated drugs for brain health and performance like coluracetam, centrophenoxine ("Lucidril") and modanafil which can safely compensate for mental deficits. in fact college kids pop it like candy but the only actual patiennt population racetams have shown to help concretely are the elderly and epileptic (in fact a racetam called Keppra is as close as there is to a magic bullet for some kinds of brain electrical disorder and is so safe they put stroke patients on it as a preventative).
I’ve only seen it used in seizures, but yes, the Keppra is very well tolerated. It can be difficult to get a RX for modafinil since it’s controlled. I’m lucky because my doc is pretty liberal with the meds. On the other hand you can get generic modafinil online with a little bit of searching. I’ve never seen estimates but it’s got to be widely used. I’ve never heard of anyone ending up in the ed from a modafinil related issue.
It's probably the same reason we don't like it when athletes dope up before a game. You aren't seeing their true baseline skill. Do we want people to get better? Yes. Do we want people to project strength and capability when it is not the baseline but a temporary fix for appearances and behind the scenes there is rapid decline? No. I'm hoping that one of the side effects from these last two administrations is that America collectively wants a younger president.
I don’t think America collectively wants a lot of what is happening, yet here we are.
This is the longest string of comments concerning a Presidential health situation I have ever seen from people hijacking and hunting for sources as they type to declare on a subject they can't seem grasp. Simple. It is rhetoric. People see that Joe is mentally waning past the scope of running a nation. Call it cognitive decline, dementia, whatever. 95%+ don't know what to call it, so they have heard the word 'dementia' and use it. In their mind they are sincere. Their point remains the same. He is not the first to have these symptoms, only the most visible. The left knows all this and will keep him as long as they can keep him doing their will. As conscientious Conservatives, liberals, independents, etc, you are fighting the leftist, not an old man who won't go away. Fight their program.....if you haven't forgotten what it is. It is staring you in the face. Oh yes. Remember the baggy of coke they found 'laying around' in a Whitehouse cubby hole.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
are we pretending we dont know about Dr feel good and JFK? or do we not know? this is not a new idea that people in power have access to medications and medical treatment that normal doctors do not prescribe normal people.
>this is not a new idea that people in power have access to medications and medical treatment that normal doctors do not prescribe normal people. Are you positing previously unknown drugs that only the elites have access to? In this case a dementia reversing drug?
you are really just not understanding. There are no miracle drugs. You are basically asking "if a college student can pull an all-nighter for an exam, why do humans sleep at all?" If you dope someone to the gills you can get them through A DAY in public. This is not a sustainable way to use medication.
Republicans aren't accusing Joe of merely being tired (outside of childish nicknames) they are accusing him of having dementia. Of being a vegetable. I'm unaware of any drugs that reverse dementia, even temporarily. I posit that they have bit down hard on fabricated right wing videos and a narrative that they gleefully wallow in and when reality disappoints them, they invent a fantasy drug rather than question their cherished narrative.
no one is even talking about a "miracle drug" we're talking about speed and testosterone. No one in the mainstream is claiming he has some crazy adrenochrome immortality drug. We, and every commentator I've heard talk about this, are just saying he's on normal, everyday drugs. We are not claiming they can reverse his mental decline, we are claiming they can zoot him up enough to fool the public, our claim is we're one step away from Weekend At Bernies being our de facto model of government, with a president who can only appear with it in public thanks to the fact they load him up with heavy-duty drugs and have his aides carefully coordinate things to hide his poor functioning.
> our claim is we're one step away from Weekend At Bernies being our de facto model of government, with a president who can only appear with it in public thanks to the fact they load him up with heavy-duty drugs Do you realize this sounds incredibly silly to the average person?
>We, and every commentator I've heard talk about this, are just saying he's on normal, everyday drugs. We are not claiming they can reverse his mental decline, we are claiming they can zoot him up enough to fool the public, our claim is we're one step away from Weekend At Bernies being our de facto model of government, with a president who can only appear with it in public thanks to the fact they load him up with heavy-duty drugs and have his aides carefully coordinate things to hide his poor functioning. And you're doing this based on what evidence? Without said evidence Occam's Razor would indicate that Biden isn't nearly as incapacitated as Republicans have convinced themselves and the (completely unsupported) accusations of drug use are a coping mechanism to continue their cruel narrative.
>And you're doing this based on what evidence? The historical predicant of "Dr. Feelgood" and others like him, the reality that people in power get special treatment, as well as the evidence we see with our own lying eyes. >Without said evidence Occam's Razor would indicate that Biden isn't nearly as incapacitated as Republicans have convinced themselves i would agree, but its not like he's as he was 20 years ago. he seems like my grandfather who's 91 and suffering the cognitive decline taht comes with, but he doesn't have the stress of being preisdnate so its not nearly as bad as Biden seems to be. I dont think he has Dementia, i also think its Crazy to claim he has suffered no cognitive decline since he was elected VP in 2008
>The historical predicant of "Dr. Feelgood" and others like him, the reality that people in power get special treatment, as well as the evidence we see with our own lying eyes. So no actual evidence. You're just listing irrelevant historical references and confirmation bias to solidify a preferred narrative.
I don’t have any evidence that Biden is on drugs. I also don’t have any evidence trump is on drugs and you can’t convince me he isn’t doped to the gills. I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibilities that Biden is doped simply because side I know trump is.
>So no actual evidence this is evidence, its called Historical precedent, institutional corruption and observation. You dont agree with the conclusions people are drawing, so you discredit the evidence rather than the claim. what have i said, quote it, that you disagree with exactly?
Historical precedent is not evidence. The fact that something HAS happened in the past does not indicate it IS happening right now in this case.
>what have i said, quote it, that you disagree with exactly? Ok. >this is evidence, its called Historical precedent, institutional corruption and observation. >You dont agree with the conclusions people are drawing, so you discredit the evidence rather than the claim. Warren G Harding was famously stupid and corrupt. Based on that historical precedent, Trump is stupid and corrupt.
>Are you positing previously unknown drugs that only the elites have access to? No I'm telling you, it is know that people in power can get access to drugs, either off label usage, unapproved combinations or illegal cocktails, to amplify their performance. A simple search will fill this in: "JFK Dr Feel good" his name was Max Jacobson. read up on him before you respond. This is a well documented issue specifically with JFK due to his health issues when he was president. Hitler is another example, Anthony Eaton the UK PM is a 3rd. outside of world leaders many celebrities, Marilyn Monroe is the biggest example due to her connection to JFK I'm not positing anything, I'm telling you facts of history that we know occurred. so I'm confused why this idea is puzzling, when the principal is almost as old as pharmacology. its called "VIP medicine," again worth a look up. did you not know about this?
Some insightful information I found: > By May 1962, Jacobson had visited the White House to treat the president thirty-four times,[14][15] although such treatments were stopped by President Kennedy's White House physicians, who realized the inappropriate use of steroids and amphetamines administered by Jacobson.[16] It was later observed that President Kennedy's leadership, specifically during the Cuban Missile Crisis and other events during 1963, improved greatly once Jacobson's treatments were discontinued and replaced by a medically appropriate regimen. And then there's this: > When he began treating Mickey Mantle in late September 1961 for a case of the flu, Jacobson's injection into Mantle's hip caused a severe abscessing septic infection at the injection site that hospitalized Mantle and threatened his career. And finally: > in 1972, Jacobson was charged with unprofessional conduct and fraud in 1973. He eventually lost his medical license in 1975. Jacobson died in December 1979, without regaining his license. You are correct that powerful people can access treatment plans that others have no access to or even knowledge about, but that's because they can source nut-job doctors who prescribe questionable things that no ethical doctor would ever do. Having access to "yes-men" or "mad-scientist" doctors is the opposite of how you're using VIP medicine (it's literally less safe and less reliable). Dr. Feel Good could've just as easily killed JFK or saddled the president with a crippling drug addiction, just like he fucked up Mickey Mantle. Unsurprisingly, Trump also had his own yes-man doctor who would commit fraud at the behest of the President and lie about his fitness, but it didn't make Trump any healthier.
>You are correct that powerful people can access treatment plans that others have no access to or even knowledge about, **but that's because they can source nut-job doctors who prescribe questionable things that no ethical doctor would ever do** 100% >Dr. Feel Good could've just as easily killed JFK or saddled the president with a crippling drug addiction last i saw their is evidence he did >Unsurprisingly, Trump also had his own yes-man doctor who would commit fraud at the behest of the President and lie about his fitness, but it didn't make Trump any healthier. 100%. i think they both do it because both are terrified of looknig their age, Old as FUCK. people who accuse one side and deny their own annoy the fuck outa me
>did you not know about this? What I don't know about, and what nobody can seem to tell me, is what drug or drugs can counteract dementia. JFK has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
>JFK has nothing to do with that whatsoever. He absolutely does, it's VIP medicine that people are talking about in relation to Joe Bidens cognitive decline, which does not look to me like Dementia to me, just cognitive decline common in your mid to late 80s. You seem to be fixating on your gotcha, ""what drug or drugs can counteract dementia?" becuase nothing cures dementia, and we both know that. we also both know many drugs can mask the symptoms of cognitive decline in your 80s while not cure it, at lest we do if your in good faith.
> it's VIP medicine OK, name the drug.
hey new guy, >You seem to be fixating on your gotcha, ""what drug or drugs can counteract dementia?" becuase nothing cures dementia, and we both know that. W**e also both know many drugs can mask the symptoms of cognitive decline in your 80s while not cure it, at lest we do if your in good faith.** thanks for making my point for me is it your opinion that no drug can mask the symptoms of cognitive decline?
Or, so just regular speed then. I assume Trump will also be on it?
> I assume Trump will also be on it? wouldn't be surprised if he's on it
What?!?! >The fact that conservatives believe this is happening only raises more questions for me. Are you sure that conservatives believe this because it is literally the first time I have ever heard this mentioned...?
[Here](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4738327-donald-trump-challenges-joe-biden-pre-debate-drug-test/) you go.
That's not quite what you said. Trump is simply saying that Biden is on drugs not that they magically make all of his symptoms go away. I think it is a reasonable belief that Biden probably is on some sort of drugs. Just like it was a pretty reasonable belief that Trump was doing some screwy shit on his taxes. That is why Biden will not take a drug test and that is why Trump did not want to release his taxes.
This is basically "The card says moops" argument. Trump and allies have definitely accused Biden of having dementia in the past. Obviously the underlying point to saying he's taking drugs before the debate is that *off of those drugs he would have dementia symptoms and would not be able to perform.* This is a whole sidestep to the question anyway - If I concede the point that Biden is taking some kind of medication (drugs) to treat cognitive issues that might affect a debate performance, why is that a bad thing? Logically it would make sense for him to take it to help with other non-debate presidential duties as well. So then what is actually the issue?
Presumably he can't take it constantly.
>This is a whole sidestep to the question anyway - If I concede the point that Biden is taking some kind of medication (drugs) to treat cognitive issues that might affect a debate performance, why is that a bad thing? Logically it would make sense for him to take it to help with other non-debate presidential duties as well. So then what is actually the issue? I think the problem is that many of those medications have side effects from long-term use. Lots of people with pain take oxycodone to help them deal with it and are fine. But very nearly all of those drugs have long-term side effects if you continue taking them. If he is on a regiment of various drugs to keep his mental decline in check. The concern is that there will be lots of side effects that eventually take hold. >So then what is actually the issue? My honest opinion is that its trying to preemptively explain any good debate performance of Biden.
all drugs have side effects, the more powerful the drug the more potent the side effects. We prefer our leaders to have only whatever crippling personality disorders lead them to want to be a politician in the first place altering their thinking, not a cocktail of psychoactive drugs as well.
>So then what is actually the issue? Those drugs probably aren't good for him and the people have a right to know if the leader of the free world needs drugs to stay cogent
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cure or mask? Masking it is bad
They should give Joe pervitin...I seem to recall another world leader taking that in the 1940's. What could go wrong??
we call it desoxyn now but it's likely he is.
What makes this specific medication most likely?
I wouldn't say it's most likely but they're all related drugs, they're functionally equivalent when used therapeutically. dextroamphetamine, racemic amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylphenidate, they all do about the same thing in medical doses as a pill. The important part of Pervitin was that it combined opiates and amphetamines and it's likely he takes both.
What makes it likely? Opiates are well know to impair cognition. Stimulants treat fatigue and ADHD, they have never been demonstrated to treat dementia or major cognitive impairment. Can you link any research that they do treat Alzheimer’s or major cognitive impairment?
I don't think you're looking at this right. It's not about "alzheimers" the specific condition and its ICD diagnostic criteria. It's about him appearing unpresidential. The off-label use of opiates to allow leaders to appear more energetic, happy, confident and unshaken is super common. It has been since these drugs were invented, Trump also took them, in fact his doctor may lose his license for overprescribing them, we know many other politicians have as well, from JFK to Nixon to Trump.
Opiates are sedatives, they depress cognitive function making people appear more sleepy and fatigued. The can make people appear more calm and relaxed but do the opposite of energize people. Why would Biden want to appear more sedated?
No. There's nothing they can give him to cure his senility. But they can speed him up a little bit so he doesn't fall asleep and he looks a little more alert. They couldn't do this all the time because it wouldn't be healthy. But one shot of an amphetamine wouldn't kill him.
>The fact that conservatives believe this is happening only raises more questions for me. I think they have him on the Manhattan project of uppers combined with a week of "prep" to get him on the perfect sleep schedule instead of a normal human sleep schedule so that he doesn't fall asleep before it starts.
So you think he's on a ton of uppers, and he's sleeping a lot?
>So you think he's on a ton of uppers, and he's sleeping a lot? I think they're changing his sleep schedule not just that he sleeps a lot. I bet he won't get up till an hour or two before the debate. But yea. Uppers and sleep schedule changes. As well as likely having all the questions beforehand like they did with Hillary which certainly helps with your prepared responses
Isn’t a “perfect sleep schedule” a positive thing. Healthy sleep is important for health and neglected by many. Uppers don’t magically restructure a demented brain into functioning again, they just increase alertness and energy. How would stimulants fix the underlying damage in memory retrieval and executive function?
>Isn’t a “perfect sleep schedule” a positive thing. Not when your "perfect sleep schedule" for the debate is drastically different than the sleep schedule of a normal human and of the need of the presidency. Not if you have to take a week away from the white house to do it. >How would stimulants fix the underlying damage in memory retrieval and executive function? The same way music let's people access memories they can't access when they're old. The memories are there the cognitive function just isn't always. The same way you remember more sometimes and less others. Get your coffee and sleep in and you're good. Just in bidens case coffee is like some legit uppers and the sleep needed is likely sleep until 2 hours before the like 9pm debate
Sleeping too much or too little hurts cognitive function. There is an optimal range of sleep that is well studied in medicine. Why would normal optimal sleep (e.g. 7-9 hrs) be a bad thing? Stimulants can’t magically regrow damaged cognitive circuits. Music can trigger memory associations like any other association, music cannot make a demented patient in an Alzheimer’s unit suddenly debate ready. Is there any evidence to your claims or is it purely speculation?
>Sleeping too much or too little hurts cognitive function. There is an optimal range of sleep that is well studied in medicine. Why would normal optimal sleep (e.g. 7-9 hrs) be a bad thing? It's not that's not what I'm saying... please don't be obtuse. It's about WHEN that sleep is. Getting 7-9 hours of sleep and waking up at 3pm isn't acceptable for the president of the US. Or for me at my job. >Stimulants can’t magically regrow damaged cognitive circuits. Music can trigger memory associations like any other association, music cannot make a demented patient in an Alzheimer’s unit suddenly debate ready. Where did I say alzheimers? He's just old.
Are you saying they are shifting normal sleep hours to wake at 3 pm as some type of cognitive enhancement method? Stimulants don’t reverse cognitive aging as well they increase alertness and attention, and tens of millions of Americans use them daily for the same purpose
>Are you saying they are shifting normal sleep hours to wake at 3 pm as some type of cognitive enhancement method? Do you not think the longer the day goes on the more tired Joe gets? That if he's been up since even 10 am he wouldn't start to slow down by 5? He wouldn't make it to 9pm for the debates. So they'll shift his sleep schedule over the week so his peak hours are debate time. Yes. That's not controversial to say people perform better when they're not as tired. Difference is, Joe is tired by lunch. The rest of us would be able to do a normal day and then debate at 8 or 9. Also, Joe needs that attention boost. He wanders off and loses his thoughts far too often. That's part of the whole mental decline thing. Stimulants, as you just said, help that
Don’t most people get more tired as the day goes on and why is shifting a sleep schedule a huge controversy even if is it purely speculative? As long as he is getting adequate sleep I fail to see how this is nefarious
You bet that? You really do? Do you think he has genuinely degenerated to the point where he needs as much sleep as my 18 month old?
It wouldn't be. The problem is no such medication exists - the problem is the best they have is medicine that can make him somewhat more cognitive, and only for a brief period of time. Worse, I imagine if they're pumping him full of this stuff frequently, it's gotta be having some kind of negative impact on his health, and no doubt has exacerbated his condition considerably over the last several years. I don't like Biden, don't get me wrong, but even I'm kind of disturbed by the idea that this guy is basically being pumped full of drugs and hauled around to put him in front of people like some kind of show or something. However shitty he was as a person before his brain turned to mush, I wouldn't wish that kind of treatment on anyone.
this is something I had not considered you're used to thinking of leaders as leaders not as men. That is some existential nightmare fuel stuff, the idea of being dragged around, stuff shoved in your face to sign, and you this to read to that camera, and you are mostly unaware of what you're even doing.
> I don't like Biden, don't get me wrong, but even I'm kind of disturbed by the idea that this guy is basically being pumped full of drugs *allegedly.
Joe Biden spends most of his time being hidden from the public. When he is in the public, he is being ferried around by handlers who have to guide him to make sure he doesn't get lost. Even with their help, he often seems to manage to wander off in the middle of conversations, to completely lose track of a conversation mid-conversation and need frequent reminders. When he walks he often seems to shuffle like some kind of roomba. The man slurs his speech, screws up massive meetings and conferences, and barely seems to know where he is at any given time. A former Presidential physician even pointed concern saying that given Biden's behavior and how little he shows himself in Public paints a worrying image of his mental health. I mean Joe literally got up and wandered off during a live interview once. At this point trying to insist that his brain isn't mush is just willful ignorance and denial.
You don’t believe there’s drugs yet not yet on the market? In my opinion, we are at least 70 years more advanced than they let on to the public- Yes that includes cancer treatment.
I think the better question is why the hell we’re allowing this blatant case of elder abuse.
Wait, are we admitting Joe Biden has dementia symptoms now? Anyway, I still wouldn't want cognizant Joe Biden as President because I don't agree with his politics and I think he's corrupt. But I guess that would be better than a dementia patient whose politics I used to not agree with when he had a functioning brain? Hypotheticals like this kind of bother me. I'm not sure why... But it just strikes me as useless pontificating. "If reality was totally different, wouldn't you have a different opinion?" Yeah I would. But it isn't. So... what?
I think you misunderstand the point of this post. There is no new hypothetical here. I am merely asking guestions that logically flow from the thing that conservatives are already trying to convince me of - that Joe Biden has dementia but he will take some kind of "performance enhancing" pill/drug to temporarily cure it so he can debate well against Trump.