How about a title like “Biden had a stroke in '88 – could that be affecting him now?” If nothing else, it makes the thread look less like a breaking news story, and thus, less misleading.
No, of course not. But doubling down by saying “I don’t need a cite” when you’re wrong is not cool in GD/PE/FQ, in my opinion. That’s all I’m saying.
Me too. Just checked in here after a day of working and assumed it was the news of the day, or month, or year.
Aging can improve judgment. Or harm it.
The President has too much authority regardless of age. Big military decisions, within bounds set by Congress, should be made by vote of a security cabinet, not one person.
Well, I do like to make my titles concise (you might’ve noticed this in the past too). But hey, if that title is required, the mods can change the title.
Yes, my question is indeed how an issue from 1988 could affect him now. I mean his mind does wander. I must not be the first person to notice that. And no one has commented on that yet either 
.
Now I am not sure what you mean by ‘doubling down’ because I did quickly recognize my error and will try to be more careful in the future. And I do think my thread brings up a good topic. No one else has ever brought it up before.
Moderating
I changed the title to be more specific regarding the medical issue, and that it happened in 1988.
Sure looked like current news to me, too!
Biden had a stutter as a child and young man. What you are perceiving isn’t that unusual with someone who has had to overcome a stutter. Of course, that is exactly the sort of thing a political enemy will attempt to twist into something it isn’t.
As for the effects of a stroke - that all depends on which region of the brain was affected. The on-going effects can range from so minimal as to be unnoticeable to completely disabling. Would you happen to know where in the brain Biden’s stroke occurred?
It might also be important to note gender and handedness of any person who has suffered a stroke, as that, too can impact effects and recovery. (Presumably, Biden is male so we’ll take that as a given)
The article to which the OP linked in post #10 mentions that the aneurysm was discovered at the base of the brain.
To the OP’s question: no, I don’t notice that he seems like “his attention does seem to wander.” I do notice momentary hesitations in his speech from time to time, which, as has already been mentioned, is likely due to his stuttering, and is nothing new.
I think that his administration, as a whole, has not always been great at managing their messaging, or in reacting quickly and decisively to issues; that said, I have no idea how much of that is on Biden himself, or on any cognitive issues which he, himself, might be suffering.
Nope. You started a thread about Biden’s “stroke,” not his “general health and cognition.” As has already been stated and cited, the latter is fine. You say,
I’ve checked news articles from 1988. None of his doctors used the word “stroke” in discussing his surgeries. This is probably because what happened was not considered a stroke. According to the Washington Post (Sorry, paywalled), Biden’s aneurysm didn’t rupture until just as the surgeon was placing the clip that would end the danger of it rupturing. You couldn’t get closer to NOT having a rupture or have a more immediate medical correction.
While the first aneurysm (A smaller, unruptured one was surgically corrected weeks later.) was absolutely life-threatening, Biden was, after the surgery,
“The Senator is awake and alert, oriented, moving all extremities well, and is conversing with his family,” said Mr. Ecker.
[This NYT article may also be paywalled. It’s dated May 4, 1988.]
Question @Jim_B Why don’t you do the research first and THEN post? And give cites in your OP and responses? I’d like an answer, please.
I’ll be more careful in the future.
Because there’s no consequences here for him not to.
I desire to be a good person and do what’s right. Isn’t that reason?
BTW you have to admit sometimes a cite is just redundant. And I’ve seen instances where other posters omit it then.
…cite?
Narrator: This, however, was not one of those times.
Good. And citing isn’t just important for posting; it’ll help you learn more, always a good thing for each of us.
That is indeed a reason. The proof is in the pudding, so I hope you do follow through.
This indicates to me that you don’t understand when you need to provide a cite. Maybe someone can explain more concisely than I could when you do and don’t need to provide one.
When you’re immediately proven wrong, a cite would have been a good idea.
It is the middle sentence that matters here.
When the opening line of the thread parenthetically states that no cite will be provided, a cite is probably in order.