"10, 9, 8, when I get to 1 you're in big trouble mister! 7, 6, 5, I'm not joking around! 4, threeeeeeeeeee, ... "
We might as well just give Iran an 8 digit grid coordinate and ask them to blow the empty warehouse up themselves.
This must be killing CENTCOM.
Masters of War. Two of the 30-minute segments were dedicated to terrorism. The first to the strategic value of terrorism to the terrorist, the second with the list of bad (there appear to be no good) options to respond to it.
I found it eye opening.
as a US drone returning, so the US failed to stop the attack due to the confusion.
Im surprised that was something that could lead to confusion.
For what purpose do we station men in a remote area where the Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi borders intersect? What vital national security interests are served by putting our people out there? Should we not expect they will attract attention? If so, what is the appropriate response in the event they are attacked? Did we take the necessary measures to protect the men in that base? Three KIA, 34 WIA? WTF?
ndsapper makes the point that we are war with Iran? If this is the case, how is this war being fought? Are we fighting to win? The American way of war, that is, when we have fought to win, is total war—obliterate the enemy, demand unconditional surrender. Does the threat posed by Iran rise to the level that total war is called for?
The last five administrations have proclaimed that Iran with a nuclear weapon is “unthinkable”. Who among you believes that Iran will not soon have nuclear weapons? If we were to attempt to forestall this development, what must we do? Wage total war? And, if we intend to wage total war and win, are we prepared for it—militarily, economically, psychologically? Which countries among our allies will join us in the effort?
The only way a total war effort will have the support of the American people is if they are told the truth and if a compelling case can be made for waging total war. I want to know what are the vital national security issues that would compel us to take the risks involved in what is likely to be a region-wide conflagration. I am not saying that a compelling case could not be made. But tell me what it is.
Big risks, big money, big sacrifices, etc. All of you know that we are not prepared for this. Who here is prepared to follow the authors of Kabul (August 2021) into battle? Who is prepared to entrust our future to that great strategic thinker, Joe Biden; or that brilliant military leader, Lloyd Austin?
In the meantime, while someone attempts to formulate a response to my questions, it is the duty of our leaders, yet again, to travel to Dover AFB, meet the flag-draped coffins being unloaded from the plane, look the grieving families in the eye, and try to explain to them why their husband, father, or brother died. If there is no explanation—and there is not one today—then you, Joe, had better rethink.
All this makes me sick.
I'll add my thoughts, though can't answer all of them. Note that all of this is common knowledge and none from classified sources.
We know now that the three KIAs were from a Georgia reserve Engineer unit stationed out of Fort Moore (formerly Benning). We are relying heavily on our Reserve forces while also running our active Army ragged (as I've mentioned--higher OPTEMPO now than during the Iraq/Afghanistan surges).
I suspect we're in that location (Tower 22 and al Tanf) for several reasons, the primary being intelligence. Additionally, there's still a humanitarian camp nearby (once 100K but now around 7500K), it provides access into Syria, and it impedes a known land logistics corridor. I would guess it is protected by US or contract forces on the gates and C-RAM through the air. Likely artillery support and aerial QRF as well. C-RAM is very effective, but the enemy either got lucky or picked up a good TTP to mirror a friendly drone.
Broadly, we are in Iraq/NE Syria/Jordan as part of the Defeat-ISIS coalition. While an incredibly successful coaltion during the fighting phase, what to do with the refugees (many who are still rabidly ISIS) and prisoners has been much more difficult. There is strong belief that if the coalition leaves the area Turkish/Russian/Syrian/Kurdish fighting will allow ISIS to reconstitute utilizing those refugees and prisoners. So we remain.
I believe Iran is at war with us and has been for some time. Their goal being to expel us from the region (they will always keep an eye on the Sunnis, obviously). The Iranians aren't fools so will push right up to the point our Commander in Chief does something about it...that point varying constantly of course. The current administration isn't the first to allow Iran to kill US Soldiers with no/very little response. Some administrations even rewarded them.
I do not believe we have any appetite for war with Iran. Maybe rightly so. If we did go to war, I would think the only real chance of success would be a broad, slowly built, coalition (ala Gulf War) with a limited political objective (regime change). I don't think we'll get that coalition (unless Iran detonates a nuke or invades somewhere), I don't think we have the internal political will, I don't think we can raise the forces necessary without a draft, and I think we're too broke.
A good portion of our leadership has an affinity for Iran that boggles the mind. A good portion of our leadership believes any meaningful response will mean WWIII. So we'll do something, but probably not much. We're saying so openly now. Our Soldiers will keep dying, probably in greater numbers. We'll watch passively as international shipping lanes are impeded.
As you can tell I am not optimistic, but I've been surprised before (Soleimani).
I don’t understand the point of still having troops in that region. For what? To be targets?
to hear a convincing explanation that recognizes, as does BeijingIrish, how unready we are to launch yet another half-baked and impulsive and reactive military venture -- that, after we declare victory, leaves us with yet another festering occupation and exposure, in a part of the world, where we have repeatedly shown that, for all our unmatched firepower, we get played by the locals, who have their own agendas that may not match ours. That "uncontested land bridge linking Iran to the eastern Mediterranean" mentioned in another reply is the direct result of our having removed Iran's biggest enemy and obstacle to greater influence in the Fertile Crescent. Did we anticipate that particular result? It seems not.
Part of Trump's popularity traces back to his candor about the Iraq invasion. That was and is a shock to the GOP establishment that forgot the party's deep roots in what I will call, knowing it is an inadequate category, isolationism.
41 got the ball rolling, though, no doubt about it.
Pretty sure it has less to do with who is leading and more to do with how we don't fight wars so good.
We tried exteicating ourselves from the area and ISIS filled the power vacuum. We have SF assets aiding numerous governments in combating extremist groups in the Middle East and Africa. This goes back quite some time.
Additionally without our help you'd risk Iran running roughshod over the middle east and seizing oil assets from Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Despite this and Afganistan we're averaging fewer deaths in combat operations under Biden than under Trump. There's just more visibility now.
In terms of Trump/MAGA foreign policy I'm reminded of Hofstadter talking about the Paranoid style in the post war era. They (McCartheyites/isolationist republicans) wanted us out of NATO/foreign entanglements but also wanted to be maximally anti communist and go to war with the USSR/use nukes, invade China etc. The philosophy was incoherent. You can't both escalate against Iran and pull out of the area. You can't be anti Chinese and abandon our treaty allies/be friends with Russia.
Ditto for enabling the Shiite Crescent to connect its wings.
Interesting now to watch our next Middle Eastern war germinate.
Thr Iraq war has to be one of the bigger own goals in our history.
Had we not elected to fight it I do wonder how the Arab Spring would have played out. I imagine we'd have gotten involved in stabilizing the region.
the Iraq war, released three years ago this month.) I've linked an NPR interview by Mary Louise Kelly with Ret. Col. Frank Sobchak, a co-author of the report. The very first think Sobchak says makes you want to run screaming from the room shouting WHAT THE F DID THEY THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN?
...The goal for many years was to take down the top guys, e.g., Jeff Fort. So what happened once that tactical approach worked and got the top guys into prison? The mass of little guys fractured into a bunch of undisciplined, freewheeling smaller gangs without the former central coordination of the big gangs. The City had not thought strategically about how to handle that, and we are still living with the shoot-em-up consequences.
past 10 years. Apparently they made a change to their laws to allow them in cars and trucks 10 years ago. During that decade there have been 30,000 guns stolen from cars or trucks. I am sure no small number of those guns have made their way to Chicago.
The most appalling part of the story is this quote from the lead sponsor.
"Listen, freedom comes with some dangers. That's one of the things that made our country great is that we put the power in people's hands"
them from populist Islamism: Saddam, Assad, Mubarak...an unsavory crowd to say the least. That's one reason, I'm sure, why the Vatican opposed our invasion of Iraq: they knew it would not lead to better conditions for Iraqi Christians. And it sure as hell hasn't.
republican party talking about bombing Iran. I'm sure they've thought of all the consequences and have plans for the aftermath...no one ever learns.
In an editorial piece in the Wall Street Journal, Sorin Adam Matei, an associate professor of research at Purdue University’s Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy, argues that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its subsequent actions demand that Russian aggression be met with sharp, consistent, and measured force (“The Ukraine War Calls for a Revival of Deterrence Theory”, August 23, 2023, pg. A17).
Matei goes on to advocate a return to tit-for-tat, i.e., actions deriving from game theory principles which are rooted in “cold math”. He points to the success had by the US during the Cold War when principles of deterrence responded to game theory—mathematical models used to predict the actions of hostile foes. He notes that early on, success derived from adherence to a simple calculus: for every major action, there must be an immediate and commensurate reaction. Matei goes on to say that, from 1989 on, the US neglected the requirement for immediate pushback, thus allowing Russia to successfully employ a “zero determinant” approach which relies upon cheating and confusing its opponents. He adds that this approach works especially well against people like us who believe in following the rules.
In this case, what is a commensurate response (forget about immediate—that horse is out of the barn)? Bombing Iran. Bomb what? Sand? What could we bomb to ensure that such an attack will not recur?
It seems to me that one way to ensure that this does not happen again is to withdraw from the region. What good does bombing Iran do? Can the mullahs prevent proxies, e.g., Hezbollah affiliates, from attacking us if they are intent on causing us harm?
Furthermore, I’d suggest that if we get to the point where we determine that we must bomb Iran, we should use strategic weapons. If I sound like Dr. Strangelove, good. Maybe it’s time to go back to Herman Kahn and think about the unthinkable. What we’re doing at present is nothing more than chingando perro. Why expend the lives of air crews, Marines, or others? Maybe we let the Israelis do it—we fly EW missions over the Gulf, they follow and deliver ordnance. Otherwise, what are the Israelis good for?
Maybe it’s because I’m old and tired. Maybe it’s because I've watched too many US Government-sponsored fiascos. Whatever it is, I’ve reached a point where my fund of patience and idealism is exhausted. I just don’t believe it is worth sacrificing American lives in quixotic ventures. Furthermore, I am not convinced there is anything we can do in the short-term to materially influence the inexorable course of the political evolution in the region. Do we belong in the middle of a sectarian struggle? Or do we stand by and watch until it burns out? Fully cognizant of the risks and the consequences, I say, let them fight it out.
To stop Saddam from grabbing Kuwait. Without US aid, could the Sunni powers stop Iran from seizing power in majority Shia Iraq, and the oil fields in Kuwait/Saudi Arabia? How would the US deal with and Iran that controls OPEC and is friendly with China? Would we be able to stand aside when Iran uses that oil wealth to attack Israel?
Overlooking a refugee camp housing 15,000 people in northern Jordan, the
secret outpost of Tower 22 on the border with Iraq and Syria has long been
strategically important to the US.
Little is publicly known about the military base, but its location just 12 miles from the better known Al-Tanf US garrison in south-eastern Syria suggests it provides logistical support – as well as border security for Jordan.
Officially, the Jordanian government does not even acknowledge Tower 22’s
existence. Yet Al-Tanf has been a key US base in the fight against the remnants of Islamic State (IS) in the region and repeatedly targeted by militia groups. Until Sunday’s drone attack, Tower 22 had not warranted the same attention.
As well as being just across the border from Tower 22, Al-Tanf garrison is also located on a vital road in south-eastern Syria that can link Iranian-backed forces from Tehran all the way to southern Lebanon – and Israel’s doorstep.
Now, the US base – which some claim holds a signals intelligence facility –
enables troops to disrupt what could otherwise be an uncontested land bridge linking Iran to the eastern Mediterranean.
Around 350 US Army and Air Force troops are thought to be stationed at Tower 22 – specializing in engineering, aviation, security and logistics – but it is unclear what type of weapons are kept there or the strength of its defenses.
This site is a daily read for me and does a good job of summarizing the ongoing situation with Iran and its proxies.
Iran's proxies have been attacking our bases and ships daily seeking this outcome, and only through a combination of luck and skill have we not had deaths to date (plenty of injuries, which it seems the administration has been ok with). Anyone surprised by this is either a liar or not paying attention. We have normalized this by not responding more forcefully sooner, and just occasionally with some pinprick strikes on the proxies (while Iran laughed at Biden). Someone on this site mentioned the 11 ballistic missiles Iran launched at our base after Trump assassinated the Iranian terrorist, however Iran's proxies have been launching ballistic missiles regularly. Make no mistake that all of this is done with Iran's political, military, and financial support and approval.
Biden has come out with a tweet that he will hold everyone involved responsible. For this statement to be true, that would mean holding the terrorist Ayatollah responsible, which Trump threatened. I do not know if that is the appropriate response, but certainly the response needs to be more than lobbing a missile at an aid worker and his family like he did in the "righteous" attack in Afghanistan, or the "strong message" that Kirby keeps saying our responses have sent to Iran. It's time for the gender studies majors in the administration and idealogues like Kerry to stop running our foreign policy, as the policy of appeasement, being nice to Iran, and hoping for this moderate revolution we keep hearing so much about in Iran to happen has not worked.
We don't need to listen to the chickenhawks like Graham or Cotton who seem to be advocating for a full scale war, but the policies that have gotten us here clearly haven't worked, and giving Iran more money and appeasement only emboldened them to sign off and likely help plan the October 7th slaughter that lit the region on fire. We now have a war in Ukraine, Gaza, something potentially even more destructive in Iran, North Korea sabre rattling again, the administration now finally considering reestablishing Trump's ban on aid to the terrorist sympathizers in the UN(RWA), and China making more bold threats and moves. This foreign policy has been nothing short of a trainwreck, and now we have at least more dead US troops and dozens more injured, with what has turned into a tanker war in the middle east that the administration doesn't want to admit to.
they would know that this would complicate Biden's chances for re-election. I don't know why they would prefer Trump. Full disclosure: I'm a new poster on this board. Regular "country club" Republican (of the Bush/Dole/Reagan) variety and no fan of Trump. Zero interest in Biden, who obviously would be followed by Harris.
That may be similar to asking why bin Laden would have carried out the 9/11 attacks when he knew it would result in the U.S. invading Afghanistan? (Ignoring Iraq.)
The answer would be because that was precisely what he wanted.
The very little material I have read suggests that an attack by the U.S. on Iran is precisely what Iran wants.
Going beyond Iran itself, it would improve Russia's situation in Ukraine, and it would give China a much freer hand in the Pacific.
Trump would probably be far more likely to fall into that trap than Biden.
Or I could be completely wrong.
And do you mean simply Harris would run or would run and win following a second term for Biden? Because only 4 sitting vice presidents have been elected, and 3 of them were in the country's infancy. Only George H.W. Bush in the last nearly 200 years has been elected president while serving as vice-president.
during his second term. Same is true for Trump of course. What a mess.
You keep thinking we need greater than a 50% chance for something to be considered likely. Instead Biden has around a coin flips chance of living 4.5 more years from today.
Thus it is very likely he dies while in office. Frankly you are making a common reasoning error: the issue is comparative risk. Biden is certainly far more risky a prospect than say Harris or Haley. Neither is likely to expire while in office relative to Biden.
If you don’t like my post here is what chatgpt says:
To calculate the probability of an 80-year-old white American male living another 4.5 years, we can refer to life tables published by organizations such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the Social Security Administration (SSA). These tables provide statistics on life expectancy and the probability of surviving to a certain age based on current mortality rates.
I'll perform a calculation using a simplified method based on life expectancy data. However, it's important to note that actual probabilities can vary due to factors such as health, lifestyle, and advances in medical care. Let me do the calculation.
Based on a simplified calculation using an estimated life expectancy of 88 years for a white American male at age 80, the probability of living an additional 4.5 years is approximately 56.25%. This is a rough estimate and actual probabilities can vary due to factors such as individual health, lifestyle, and advances in medical care. For more accurate information, consulting detailed life tables from reliable sources such as the CDC or SSA would be beneficial
You don't say he's 80, and 80 year old has a life expectancy of 88 (hint that is an average) and then take 4.5/8. If anything you'd have to say it is 50/50 he makes it to 88, and if he doesn't make it to 88 then take 50% times your 4.5/8. But even that isn't right things are linear etc.
But they literally give you numbers to calculate this for an "average" person precisely. They start with 100,000 male lives at age 0. At age 80, there are 45,397 men left. By Age 84, there will be 33,015 men left. You simply take 33,015/45,397 = 72.7% of 80 year old men will be alive at 84 (conversely you can say 27.3% will be dead.) Perhaps not surprisingly, this is around the number we get in my first paragraph when I fix your calculation.
If you run it for 85 year old, you will get about 34.4% of 80 year old dead then. So 84.5 somewhere between 27% and 34%, say 30% chance.
Also it should be noted his father lived to almost 87, and his mother to over 92. They were born around 1916 - with life expectancies of around 55 (and I am adding a couple years to the male side due to WW2.)
I would take an even money bet Biden lives to see his 90th birthday.
You still come up with a 1/3 chance that he kicks the bucket while in office. But you don't want to say that's likely? Fine.
What is the cost of his death? What is the expected value of handling that? How do voters consider the "cost" of a Harris presidency? How does that influence their decision whether to vote and how?
Think harder. Some of you blow my mind with the knots you're willing to twist yourself into to justify sub optimal decision making.
You want to quibble on whether it's likely ... What is the minimal acceptable likelihood a president kicks the bucket in office?
Said another way, how does the random chacne that biden kicks the bucket as president? How does that compare to a 55 year old male with a Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) diagnosis? How would you regard the decision making of a party that trotted such a person out as the candidate for POTUS?
But yes let's measure dicks over the hasty calculations done on the PBR instead.
and changing to some side question without acknowledging the previous posts you made. This isn't a CNN town hall debate.
MarineDomer: "That is just wrong"
AirborneIrish Response:
"Instead Biden has around a coin flips chance of living 4.5 more years from today."
"Thus it is very likely he dies while in office." Followed by a comment that MarineDomer is making an error.
My post clearly shows my work (SSA tables are linked in another post if you want to cross-check, it won't let me re-link them) and that both of your statements are demonstrably false.
It is not a coin flip. It is certainly not (your words) "very likely". If it was, then how would you describe the 70% chance he does not die in office? Very Strenuously Likely? It is just prima facie wrong, admit it and move on. And even worse, these numbers are for average people at 80, I am sure for health, genetics, and medical care his odds are lower.
If you ran the numbers for a 76 year old making it to 80.5, there is a 20% chance of death. So it isn't like it went from zero to 30% or something.
Think harder? I have thought pretty hard using actual data, and will only address a bunch of new questions moving the goalposts after you agree it is neither a coin flip nor likely he dies in office.
No one is arguing that Biden will be just fine, or that his dying in office wouldn’t be a bad thing. I made the simple, and very accurate, point that it is not “likely” that either Trump or Biden will die before 2029 statistically. You then came at me with “you look silly to us math guys.”. Who’s engaged in silly dick-measuring here?
Franky, I don’t know what you mean by a “math guy” anyway.
No rational person refers to a 1/3 chance as likely, much less “very likely.”. Your own little number percentage chart showed that, and yet you continue to want to be the one to pick a fight.
You refuse to acknowledge there are three perspectives: Legal, academic, and practical. That's all I'm saying. You keep sticking to the legal perspective but we aren't at trial and I'm saying if I have to pick which to go with I pick the practical one: one that sets thresholds for probabilities that are contextual. This admittedly bleeds the concepts of expected value back into "likelihoods or aka pure probabilities" but certainly for me, a guy having a 1/3 chance of dying in the next 4.5 years is a likely outcome... Look at the probability of HRC victory of Trump. It's a very likely outcome given the roulette board.
You want to bet the farm on a 1/3 chance of going BK? I do not.
We are talking past each other. My argument was not a legal one, but a mathematical one. You then basically called me a dummy and said I don't understand the math, while bringing in issues that are semantic, and not anyone's idea of math.
If I was addressing the question "Should we elect either Donald Trump or Joe Biden?" I've already answered that in the negative. IF I was addressing the question, "Is there a not insignificant chance Biden could die in office, or become disabled before 2029 to the point he was incapable of serving?" I've already answered that in the affirmative. If the question was "wouldn't that be a bad thing if it happened?" I answered that as well in the affirmative.
As to the definition of likely, I guess you have your definition, and it differs from any I've ever heard. But we won't ever agree on that.
mental competence, or just a resignation prior to that, is more likely.
He's clearly lost about 40mph on his fastball. I don't think he's incompetent at the moment. However, we haven't before(for me) seen a president with his spouse right off the stage at practically every major event waving at him for what direction to go walking.
My experience with that age group is that people mask things very well, out of the public view, until it really snowballs. I do not see the guy functioning at any presidential, or even visible public level, in 4.5 years.
Which then basically means you have an unelected trio of Sullivan/Blinken/Burns acting as president by committee for Iran and Russia.
just that. simply review his speeches and appearances from the Obama era. That guy who would slap you on the back and whisper "this is a big fucking deal" in your ear could triple lap this guy.
It's not a stutter. He's old af and not fit to serve.
Anyone blaming all the gaffes on a "life long stutter" demonstrates to me that they're a dipshit partisan.
yourself by writing, on the one hand, that something need not be 50% or greater to be “likely,” and then you double down with “very likely.” Simply mathematically and statistically false.
And I’m not the one making the reasoning error, respectfully. You are. My point has precisely zero to do with your comparative risk example. Of course Harris and Haley are more likely to be alive in 2029 than Biden or Trump, as are most people significantly younger than Trump and Biden living in the U.S. without obvious major medical issues.
would need to look at a smaller subset of the American Public.
I worked road construction during college. The guys I worked with (it was all male from my recollection) had mostly worked unskill physical labor their adult lives. They smoked and at every day at 3:30 they pulled a 6 pack out of their cooler and started drinking. Many were overweight.
I am not an actuary but I am going to make the assumption their life expectancy is much shorter than a man who worked in the Halls of the Senate and White House from his early 30's onward, remained physically active and ate well all of which Biden appears to have done.
I got this
You
percent chance for an 80 year old to live to 85
ChatGPT
Life expectancy and the chance of reaching a specific age can vary based on a variety of factors, including gender, location, and individual health. However, if we look at general statistics in the United States, we can provide a rough estimate.
For an 80-year-old male in the United States, the chance of living to age 85 is quite high. According to life tables from the National Center for Health Statistics, about 60-70% of 80-year-old men can expect to reach age 85. It's important to note that these figures are averages and can vary based on individual health and circumstances.
so 60-70% is right in that "likely" zone you mentioned below. I think its important to note that anything with age expectancy is based on so many variables, that any "percentage" would be connected to a fat +- error level as well.
Its all a pedantic chat room argument, perfect for the PBR. I dont think its that big a deal to disagree that Biden is likely to die in a second term, though his mind might go well before his body. The OP said Trump would die as well. Now, i think you would agree it is not likely that BOTH would pass over the next 4.5 years.
Either way, I really wish both would just go on with their lives and focus on playing with their grandchildren and watching Bonanza reruns on Tubi.
Of being president until 2029?
Or, will he still be alive and be physically or mentally impaired, making him unfit to hold the office of president?
He’s old. People need to accept that reality.
Biden is declining but has a long way to go before catching up to Trump’s sociopathic dementia.
Your questions about Biden are valid. Your questions applied to Trump are answered.
I’ve been vocal about not wanting Trump anywhere near DC: past, present, and future.
For clarity: Trump’s age isn’t even the main issue here, it’s every other aspect of his being. At least with Biden, if he were younger he would be a better candidate. A younger Trump would still be shitty.
as it was written. It is simply incorrect to say that it is statistically likely for either Trump or Biden to die before 2029. Anyone who knows statistics and life tables would know that.
For the record, I don't think either of them should be anywhere near the Oval Office for the next 4 years.
Seriously stop. I like you too much. You sound foolish to math people.
Would you play Russian roulette with a near coin flip chance of blowing your brains out? Likely doesn’t mean what you think it means.
In statistical terms, when evaluating the likelihood of an event, such as the survival of an individual for a certain period, it's important to consider the probability in relation to common benchmarks or thresholds that define levels of likelihood. While there isn't a universally accepted set of thresholds for terms like "likely," "unlikely," "very likely," etc., in many contexts, including weather forecasting and risk assessment, the following scale is often used as a guideline:
Very likely: >90% probability
Likely: >66% probability
About as likely as not: 33%–66% probability
Unlikely: <33% probability
Very unlikely: <10% probability
Given the calculated probability of approximately 56.25% for the 80-year-old white American male to live another 4.5 years, this event would fall into the "About as likely as not" category. This means that while there's a greater than 50% chance of survival beyond 4.5 years, making it technically more likely than not, it doesn't reach the threshold of being categorized as "Likely" in a more nuanced, statistical context
quote the actual probability estimate. Using rules of thumb is imprecise, and--as evidenced here--prone to interpretation bias.
and I certainly know more about “likely” than you do. I deal with the concept every day. And if you think you know what I think likely means more than I know what I think likely means, well…..
P.S. — I still like you, though.
Biden doesn't drink or smoke. He's not fat. He has a mentally stimulating job and interaction with family/friends on a regular basis. He's not being treated for cancer.
I plugged in his information to a Northwest Mutual site and am getting a life expectancy of 10+ years. Also the male actuarial tables are giving 7 to 8 years as the life expectancy for the average 80 year old male
..."Yes--no--maybe so."
I think that incapacitation, or inability to perform the role, is a higher probability event versus death, but neither are off of the table given his age.
We can argue about the stats all day. The reality is that Biden is old, looks old, acts old, and will only get older with each day that passes.
An 82 year old male has 6.77 years to live, per the SSA. Not all of those will be good years, and none of them should be spent in the Oval Office. Knowing this, arguing that Biden will still be alive in five years doesn't mean much, and is a distraction when mental capacity is the issue at hand.
He’s one good stumble from seriously bad juju.
Again, I don’t want Biden to be in office, and don’t think he will be anywhere near appropriate capacity to be President in 4 years, if he even is now.
As to your point about the word “death,” respectfully, that’s absurd, especially in this thread. No, people don’t use death to mean “ineffective” or incapable of serving. And more to the point, the post I responded to specifically suggested he was likely to “die in office.”. There is nothing ambiguous about that. So I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me about this. It comes off as a “But Biden” post, which isn’t any better than the last few years of “but Trump” posts we’ve all endured.
The job after the mid terms. I agree they both have the risk of a sudden health decline, but he they'd both likely be fine over 4 years without the need to campaign for the last two.
If Kamala got the job late in Joe's term that might help a bit in the primary. But she'd need to be a lot better at politics in 2028 than 2020 to survive the primaries.
Question about Iran’s thinking.
the American election. If I were to guess, I would think the mullahs who run Iran want to be the de facto leaders of the Muslim world, and part of that is poking the Great Satan in the eye while doing the same to Israel. President Biden continually showing his unwillingness to risk escalation has made it seem lower risk that it should.
Election year so they can get away with the opportunity,? Plausible I think.
The Sunni nations are worried their populations will revolt if they help the US right now. Iran also wants to show it's the most anti Israeli force in the ME to maintain legitimacy.
Without Gaza we'd likely be able to rely on the Saudi's/UAE to help in Yemen and Jordan/Turkey to be more helpful in Syria.
See link below.
That means 82 years old life expectancy for males who had already lived to age 65. Joe Biden will turn 82 on 11/20/24. Trump will turn 78 on 6/14/24.
Life expectancy is the median age of death, correct? If so, 50% of people aged 65 will die before 82 and 50% will live longer than 82. I'm willing to be educated on life expectancy statistics.
Different things.
Biden's life expectancy is about another 8 years. Trunp's about 9.5. And no, I'm not rooting for anyone to die. I just don't think we should be electing 80 year olds to be President.
According to the actuarial tables an 81 year old has a 6% chance of death. An 85 year old? 10%. Higher than normal, yes, but "likely?" Not so much.
Not that age isn't a problem - loss of the "fastball" and all. But people saying that an 81 year old in excellent physical shape "will probably die" is weird wishcasting.
As far as Trump? Not so much for the physical shape, but genetics seems to also have its say. (obviously not a doctor but that's my guess)
All Comer actuarial tables. Neither has diabetes or heart disease. Neither drinks or smokes. Neither currently has cancer. Trump hasld a pretty low risk coronary CT. They're also socially plugged in and engaged in (for them) fulfilling goal driven activities.
Trump is obese and brags about how little he needs to sleep (in pictures his dad was pretty skinny.) So I suppose he has risks of falling off from a health perspective. But the risk isn't as high as you'd think.
It might actually be lower than a 60 year old in pre ww2 era politics. No treatment for diabetes, heart disease, strokes, or bacterial infections. Lots of nasty now vaccine preventable diseases as well.
a woman of color, no matter how unpopular she is, was racist. I agree it's probably Newsome or someone else as the standard-bearer if Biden is gone, but they're going to have to navigate the waters of replacing a woman of color who thinks it's her turn (and is willing to play to race and gender card whenever she thinks it helps her), in a party that has embraced immutable characteristics as one of its top criteria.
No wonder Trump was able to take over your party.
Did it hurt your feelings when I called out the party to which you pledge fealty? Biden specifically limited his choice of VP candidates to ~6% of the population based on immutable characteristics, excluding 94% of candidates. If you think replacing Harris with Newsome wouldn't be met with scores of "racism" and "sexism" critiques from your own race-obsessed party you haven't been paying attention. Clyburn, who helped secure Biden's nomination in 2019, would be out day 1. No wonder your progressive laboratory of a state whose policies you champion saw the largest net loss of one-way movers in 2023. See? I can make assumptions too.
There’s a reason that someone like mental midget Donald Trump could takeover your party. It’s the party of massive intellects like Candice Owens, Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, and krudler. It was always an easy mark.
Something something something GOP. You have zero substance or thought and just parrot what you hear on MSNBC. Take your schtick elsewhere and go celebrate your dogmatic ideology that's made your state the top exporter of people across America. Go back to the left wing of your party joined by the massive braintrust of Maxine Waters, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, and Kali4niaND. They've got some nice new bumper stickers for smooth-brains like you; just keep pulling that party lever and don't worry about silly things like thinking! No wonder so many have you on ignore.
They have declared it through action. We must fight or get out of there.
This was only a matter of time and absolutely damn tragic. Our inaction on all the earlier attacks encouraged more aggressive assaults. F this fing shit. We need change.
I’ve been in the Army for a long time. It’s given me a lot, changed my life and social class. Even through the long war I encouraged every kid that would listen to join. I would no longer. Find another place to serve…the Coast Guard, the local police, firefighters, teachers. Our national security apparatus is too broke.
You and others have been warning that this was the likely outcome. The administration has been fearful to punish Iran for fear of escalation, too ideological to understand that just playing nice with Iran gets us nowhere and not realizing Iran essentially declared war on us October 7th after daily attacks on our bases and ships. Shame on this administration for not protecting our troops.
Maybe Iran already has the bomb, maybe the mullahs are on the verge of collapse and without a war are about to lose power, maybe we are doing something the public doesn’t know. Nothing is ever straightforward with Iran. And they seem to desperately turn the Gaza War into an entire Middle East war. I don’t think it’s necessarily feckless to prevent that from happening.
That Hamas and Israel are close to a 4 month ceasefire with release of 100 hostages.
I'd guess the admin would like to be able to hold off escalation until the sunni states can cooperate with us openly. Right now ziran looks like the good guy to most people over there because of Gaza.
It'll be interesting to see how far we respond to this.
up until October 7th. A week before, the National Security Advisor was writing that their disciplined approach
that Biden has no idea what he is doing, and/or is afraid to make the wrong move because he bought into the notion that we should become friends with Iran. He has a lot invested in the notion of trying to normalize relations with that evil and murderous group of sociopaths leading Iran.
I hope you're right but doubt there's that much that went into it. I've grown too cynical to give either party the benefit of the doubt in these kinds of circumstances, and just default to the concept that their strategies are based purely on politics and ideology and not something more strategic until proven otherwise. Also, if your theories are true, I would think we'd do something like temporarily move the troops to a more fortified and secure location where they're not sitting ducks in the middle of the desert. If your theories are true and we're avoiding conflict because of something more important and imminent, we've now done it on the backs of 3 dead soldiers.
They certainly greatly exceeded mine. And you're right, it's tragic. I feel like our nation took a bad turn sometime, I believe, in the 1970s when we elected the first ever Congress with fewer members who had served than had not. Now there is a lot of lip service paid to the military, but it is used by both parties as a plaything.
Biden has no direction, and is kowtowing to all the wrong people. And my party has turned to an orange clown draft dodger who referred to POWs as "guys that got caught" and other military as suckers. I'll not cast a vote for either of them.
I have followed your posts with interest following the attack on Israel and the subsequent attacks on our ships and troops. Sadly, you predicted this. I appreciate your contributions here.
Maybe President Biden will fetch Obama’s gal ValJal to cut another great deal with him the Iranians.