" The point wasn’t that every Democrat openly criticised Biden - it’s that many did, and more importantly, they could."

You live in a fantasy world where the past is just what you want it to be. The fact is there was a concerted active effort within the left-leaning media, (ie almost all of it), to hide Biden's cognitive decline from the people....

http://tiny.cc/p0tg001

http://thespectator.com/newsletter/book-deals-hid-biden-decline-bad-press-04-03-2025/

http://www.amazon.com/Original-Sin-President-Cover-Up-Disastrous/dp/B0DTYKCJC9

http://tiny.cc/v0tg001

http://tiny.cc/w0tg001

http://tiny.cc/x0tg001

http://tiny.cc/21tg001

http://tiny.cc/41tg001

( I have a lot more if you want. I'm helping a family member do her thesis on the issue of how easily the media managed to cover over the fact that Biden was not really running things and the implications for democracy).

No one doubts that Trump is in charge. Everyone (well everyone other than you apparently) now knows that Biden was a mere figurehead. Yet before the debate, the Democrat hierarchy thought they could do it again. And if it wasn't for the monumental error of agreeing to the debate, they might have just pulled it off.

I've written before, and probably on these pages, that Trump's decision to agree to the debate might turn out to have been the most brilliant political move so far this century. The conditions the Democrats put on the debate were so one sided that all assumed that Trump would say no and they'd then blame him for cowardice. But he said yes and forced them to ante up. And the rest is history.

mhaze,

You’ve replied with a wall of links and assertions, but once again, you’ve avoided the actual point.

Firstly - yes, I know who Barry Goldwater was and the origin of the rule - it was introduced after Fact magazine surveyed psychiatrists who speculated about his mental fitness without evaluating him. But the rule applies specifically to formal diagnoses, not to raising concerns based on observable behaviour - especially when clearly framed as non-diagnostic. The APA itself has clarified this.

That being said, Dr Zoffmann didn’t offer a diagnosis. She said Trump’s behaviour appears consistent with a known condition and recommended proper assessment. That’s well within ethical boundaries. If she and others were “breaking rules,” which licensing body sanctioned them? (None.)

As for the links claiming the media and the Democrats tried to hide Biden’s condition - you’re sidestepping again. I never claimed it was handled perfectly. I said many of Biden’s supporters, commentators, and voters acknowledged the issue - and they were free to. There was no loyalty test.

That’s the difference with Trump. His defenders don’t just downplay concerns - they treat even raising them as disloyalty. One side allowed space for internal criticism. The other demands total allegiance.

And no, this isn’t about gaffes or policy disagreement - it’s about years of observable traits: pathological lying, paranoia, grandiosity, erratic speech, and obsession with loyalty over competence. A perfect MoCA score doesn’t erase that. It screens for early dementia - not character, judgment, or emotional regulation.

If you want to debate whether Democratic leaders or media outlets tried to hide or downplay Biden’s condition, fine. But none of that explains why even raising concerns about Trump’s fitness is suddenly treated as unethical by his defenders.

And that’s the question you still haven’t answered.

"But none of that explains why even raising concerns about Trump’s fitness is suddenly treated as unethical by his defenders."

Its unethical because its untrue and based on false assertions. But you know all about false assertions, don't you. And its unethical because the same people now piously raising issues about Trump either completely ignored the much greater problems with Biden or actively covered over those issues.

" I never claimed it was handled perfectly. I said many of Biden’s supporters, commentators, and voters acknowledged the issue -"

Backtracking already. A new record. BTW I note that you haven't provided any examples of Democrats acknowledging Biden's dementia.

mhaze,

You’re calling it “unethical” not because it's false - but because it challenges your narrative. That’s the issue.

You claimed Trump’s critics were breaking professional rules. I pointed out they made qualified observations, not diagnoses - and in Dr Zoffmann’s case, she’s Canadian and not subject to the APA’s U.S.-specific Goldwater Rule. You haven’t refuted that.

As for “backtracking,” no. I said from the start that many Biden supporters acknowledged concerns over time - not that all did, or that it was handled flawlessly:

"...many of Biden’s own supporters openly acknowledged concerns about his age and visible frailty."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10589#369780

There was no retreat - it’s the same point, restated clearly. And if I were backtracking, it would be a record by necessity - because I’ve yet to do that in any of our discussions.

//BTW I note that you haven't provided any examples of Democrats acknowledging Biden's dementia.//

You say that like it was deliberate. You should know by now that I always have examples in mind:

-David Axelrod, former Obama advisor, called Biden’s age a serious liability in 2023.
-Dean Phillips, a sitting Democratic congressman, ran against Biden in the primaries because of these concerns.
-The Atlantic, The New Republic, and The New York Times published multiple pieces raising concerns about Biden’s age and stamina between 2022 and 2024.

You’ll find no equivalent space for concern inside the MAGA orbit. That’s the difference: one side allowed the conversation - even reluctantly. The other shuts it down entirely and calls it “unethical” to even ask.

You haven’t shown that any of the concerns about Trump’s behaviour - erratic speech, detachment from reality, pathological lying - are “false assertions.” You’ve simply declared them so.

Calling dissent unethical because you disagree with it isn’t a defence. It’s intellectual cowardice.

"You’re calling it “unethical” not because it's false "

Its unethical because the professional bodies have determined that its not possible to diagnose from afar. Its just people using the letters after their name to push their political barrow.

Your examples about people talking about Biden were all about his age which was of course undeniable. Come back when you find a senior Democrat admitting Biden's dementia and that the was incapable of being president. Oh, and knowing how you twist, I'd point out that the examples need to be from before the debate. There were plenty after the debate. And even more now admitting that the media and the Democrats ran a concerted campaign to hide the dementia from the voting public.

To criticise Trump as is being done is to to openly support a presence for root & incompetence.
No President has ever had to cope with so much character assassination & ridicule etc as this man. That he is even still standing up is a credit & evidence of his resilience & character.
Anyhow, Vance will make a good President ! A many times more competent & sane team than their predecessors & their supporters !