John Brown stan account

@johnbrownstan.bsky.social

2352

Followers

302

Following

5507

Posts

Liberal democracy, like all systems of government, is propped up by an implicit threat of violence

Posts Replies Media

Reposted by

John Brown stan account

Reply to

Prestidigitator John 🇵🇸🇺🇦

Alex Berenson has this pinned to his page.

Reply to

Jake Wertz

Yeah, but that's just because the competition is so weak

I want to be clear that I'm not some huge Biden stan. He has been far better than I expected, but I don't ultimately care that much which Dem is in the White House in 2025, just so long as it's a Dem

Reply to

👻joy meads👻

The state polls are similar. Anywhere between +2 and -2. 538's model has the race as a coin flip for a reason. Would I prefer he were polling better? Yes. But it's July and these are nowhere near insurmountable numbers.

Reply to

👻joy meads👻

He can generally talk fine, aside from sounding old. And yes, yhat makes two of us.

Reply to

👻joy meads👻

If you're going to keep saying that he is worryingly behind in the polls, you have to at some point address my repeated observation that he is not, according to the averages, particularly far behind.

538 has him down 2 when he was basically tied before the debate. You're acting like he's down 10. If he were down 10 I'd agree the Hail Mary plan.

Reply to

👻joy meads👻

True of literally every candidate you put forward. You need to not only demonstrate that some Democrats will stay home because Biden is old, you also need to demonstrate that fewer Democrats will stay home as a result of another candidate's weaknesses

If you put up Harris, some Democrats are going to stay home because they don't like voting for a former prosecutor, or they find her off-putting, or the New York Times runs a bunch of stories about "what did Harris know about Biden's health????"

Reply to

👻joy meads👻

My god, 33% of Democrats saying he shouldn't be in the race does not mean those 33% are not going to vote for him!

Reply to

👻joy meads👻

I agree that if we were to swap him it would have to be Harris, but you're saying this like it's some totally obvious thing all Democrats are going to agree with and rally behind and you're absolutely fucking wrong about that

All the lefties who are calling for him to drop out are going to be pissed about Harris automatically getting handed the torch and I guarantee they will be griping about it until election day.

Reply to

👻joy meads👻

What fucking polling average are you looking at? Is there a secret one I'm not familiar with? He was slightly *up* before the debate and now he's down *2*. Like, for real, what the fuck are you talking about??? Do we need to give you a cognitive test?

Reply to

👻joy meads👻

A large percentage of people had concerns about his age before, and "being concerned about his age" doesn't tell anything about how it will affect their vote intention.

These conversations are absolutely maddening. Swapping the top of the ticket in fucking July is an insane desperation move and not something you do because "he dropped two points after the debate and voters say they're concerned about his age". Every candidate has weaknesses!

You don't get to swap him out for Generic Perfect Democrat #5 Who's Guaranteed to Win, you almost certainly swap him for Harris, risking major intraparty conflict among people who wanted a brokered convention or something, and then Harris has her own baggage too.

I wouldn't be opposed to that if his numbered dropped 10 points or something, but all of the evidence so far as that the damage from the debate was muted. There isn't even evidence yet that the media firestorm has harmed him. Like what are we even doing here

Reply to

👻joy meads👻

According to the polling people thought he lost but it didn't affect their view of him much or their voting intention much

The article itself says they have no idea why he was there!! bsky.app/profile/john...

Anyway, the article itself says they have no idea why the guy was there. You've become a very annoying troll

I'm the Q-anon guy for pointing out that there's a perfectly normal explanation for a Parkinson's expert visiting the White House over the course of a year in which they were working out administration of a bill to research Parkinsons'?

Meanwhile you're the cool rationalist for latching on to a very specific explanation involving the President specifically having Parkinsons' disease. Holy shit

It's not Q-Anon level stuff to point out fairly obvious alternative explanations here. But even if we think this was for Biden, he (openly) suffers from peripheral neuropathy and the neurologist could just be there for that

Anyway, the article itself says they have no idea why the guy was there. You've become a very annoying troll

Wonder why the White House would have a Parkinson's expert visiting over the last year. Very suspicious stuff

Breaking News: A Parkinson’s expert visited the White House eight times in eight months from last summer through this spring, according to official visitor logs. The administration has said that President Biden has no signs of the disease.

Parkinson’s Expert Visited the White House Eight Times in Eight Monthswww.nytimes.com The White House has said that President Biden has no signs of the disease and that there has been no reason to update the most recent testing, conducted in February.

If I can refute the central insinuation of your article in five minutes with a google search, what you're doing is not journalism.

Eight times in eight months over the last year, that's so crazy!

Apologies for the lack of alt text: Biden signed a bill to help combat Parkinson's disease into law literally 6 days ago. I also posted a timeline showing it's been in the works since March of last year

Reply to

jordanw2382.bsky.social

It's actually considered an ethical violation for doctors to try to diagnose public figures through the TV, and there's a good reason for that.

Reply to

post malone ergo propter malone

It lines up perfectly with the house passing a bill to research Parkinson's, which Biden signed 6 days ago. This goes totally unmentioned in the article. Peter Baker should be forced to eat dog food bsky.app/profile/john...

Eight times in eight months over the last year, that's so crazy!

Reply to

The New York Times

If I can refute the central insinuation of your article in five seconds by searching google, what you're doing is not journalism