American Politics: Discuss and Debate (Page 45 of 57)

Well. Resuming our tradition of Quinn writing campaign messages:

I cannot stress enough that this is a work of fiction and not written by AI; Quinn Mallory's political views as presented by me are so far outside canon that to call them fan fiction is giving them too much weight; the views of ireactions are not the views of Sliders.TV, and if I am wrong on this one, then I owe Slider_Quinn21 an Alamo movie house gift certificate.

Also, in 2016, Quinn told Slider_Quinn21 to vote for Joe the Tiger Guy and Slider_Quinn21 has said he will always regret it.

Please employ critical thinking and remember that Quinn is a fictional character and he has made a lot of bad choices like the time he beat a classmate with a baseball bat or when he walked into a vortex instead of building a drone with a digital video recorder that didn't depend on magnetized tape.

**

Gain-of-function is a point of criticism again of Dr. Fauci. Fauci had previously denied that the US or his agency supported or funded experiments in altering viruses to make them more infectious and contagious and resilient (to test how to fight them), or that he had contributed to such research in China, or that such research could have led to a lab leak that could have created COVID-19.

But last month, National Institutes of Health Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak confirmed that he and Fauci had worked on and led and contributed to gain-of-function research in China. However, Tabak noted that gain-of-function isn't a universally defined term and said the experiments discussed couldn't have led to COVID-19.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/0 … l-00161109

Fauci is to face the House of Representatives committee on Monday for questioning.

I will note that, as QuinSlidr explained: the research in question involved creating three artificial, lab-generated viruses and experimenting with how capable they would be of replicating in human cells; the human cells were placed in lab mice.

The argument at the time, as I understood it (but please be informed I am shaky on this) is that this research involved creating artificial and non-harmful viruses, not existing and/or dangerous viruses, and therefore didn't qualify as gain-of-function research, which generally refers to making natural viruses more powerful -- but not every scientist will consider gain-of-function a term exclusively applied to non-artificial viruses.

It's so frustrating to see a decorated medical professional harassed by a PTA reject who barely seems to have any education at all.

I think the problem with this is that there's an expert willing to sign off on any opinion these days.  There are doctors who are willing to advocate for anti-vax concerns.  There are doctors willing to speak out against masks, against social distancing, against basically anything.  I'm sure there's a "medical expert" with a YouTube channel advocating for smoking.

And those are all credentialed people.  That doesn't even include the "experts" who are lying about their credentials.

I always sort of laugh when ignorant people say to "do their own research" but it's a Rashomon situation sometimes.  Depending on which path you take, you could come to two different concerns.  Both which could be backed up by evidence that seems to point to the conclusion you're looking for.

Documentaries usually seem pretty definitive, and I think we've been conditioned to believe them.  But there are documentaries that "prove" that 9/11 was in inside job.  There are documentaries that "prove" that the 2020 election was stolen.  Backed by video and expert testimony.

Fact checking is a useful tool, but people don't trust fact checks if they disagree with their desired result.  Twitter does community notes when people outright lie, but people just ignore them if they love the lie.

I don't think people are intentionally ignorant or dumb.  Back in the day, there were plenty of people like that.  But there was less information, and the information they received was properly filtered.  Now, any idiot can be on YouTube or Reddit or whatever and can spread their misinformation to millions.  They can be a true expert with a slanted agenda, or they can just lie and say they're an expert.  By the time you've found out which is which, your opinion could be slanted.

I don't have a solution for this.

Agreed.

I would say it's important to exercise humility and critical thinking, and to differentiate subjective opinion from verifiable facts, fundamentals and principles.

In terms of sources: yes, anyone can say anything on YouTube or social media or post anything online. Therefore, we need to distinguish claims and assertions from knowledge. We need to recognize what's theory, what's fact, and when someone is presenting theory as fact.

When you're reviewing claims and assertions, are they presented with sources? Do the claims distinguish from sourced information and interpretative application of that information? Can we verify the sources are ones that offer actual medical and scientific research?

Are the claims operating within the basic principles of the fields in which they're engaged?

In terms of masking: electrostatics goes back to 8 BC and remains a fundamental area of science for extremely commonplace applications like air conditioning (filtration) and printers (photoconducting drums for positively charged image printing).

In this field, I have actually been impressed with YouTuber Aaron Collins, a mechanical engineer who uses an aerosol generator (that pumps sodium chloride particles into the air) and a particle counter with a probe that can be tightly punched through a mask. This allows Collins to measure the amount of particles outside the mask and the amount inside the mask, and report on the filtration.

This isn't just someone making claims; this is someone filming his test process and presenting results that make sense within the study of electrostatics. Collins also specifies that mask efficacy depends on a decent seal, and what seals well for him may not seal for others. These are assertions with evidence.

Someone may say electrostatic masks don't work and cite studies that consist of self-reported data. We might ask: do these claims exist within the realm of physical reality? They are saying that the laws of physics and the fundamentals of electrostatics cease to apply within a half-inch of the mouth and nose.

Does that sound plausible? Or does it sound like someone conflating theory with knowledge and tunnel vision with expertise, prioritizing social sciences over physics?

The responsible amateurist differentiates theory from evidence, and identifies or specifies what is an assertion and what is verified fact. The responsible amateurist accepts mask studies of self-reported data, but categorizes them as a study of human behaviour, not particle physics, reconciling both to observe: there are issues with human usage of masks, but behavioural studies don't overrule basic fundamentals of electrostatic attraction and repulsion.

If I tell you that oxybenzone, homosalate and octocrylene are potentially unsafe chemicals in sunscreen and that only titanium and zinc are known to be safe, you can Google those chemicals. You'll find this corroborated by the websites for the National Library of Medicine, the American Medical Association, the US Food and Drug Assocation, the National Institutes of Health, and the European Commission's Public Health branch.

You'll also see that there is nuance to be had: homosalate, avobenzone and oxybenzone are not proven to harm humans, but they absorb through skin, are detected in bodily fluids weeks after application, and have been found to be harmful in animal studies. While their effect on humans is not fully researched, animal study data is concerning, which is why titanium and zinc lotions, not deeply penetrating skin, are preferred by some.

By the same token: some medical professionals argue that oxybenzone should be avoided, but the rest are present in such small quantities in sunscreen that they are not harmful.

And when you can't find any corroboration within the basic principles of the field or from medical research, only other claims and assertions, then it isn't fact and shouldn't be presented as such. It is theory. And theory without at least a factual foundation is simply nonsense.

And going back to politics: after the Robert Hur DOJ report on Joe Biden's improper storage of classified documents was released, the internet was filled with clickbait articles declaring that Joe Biden was having serious memory problems and Robert Hur's report proved it.

But if you actually read Hur's report, you would see that the majority of people whom Hur interviewed had forgotten as much as Biden; that Hur excused all of them as having naturally forgotten events decades past -- except when writing about Joe Biden's memory at which point Hur declared he was senile.

The responsible reader should read the clickbait articles with suspicion. A responsible journalist would provide Hur's examples of Biden's failing memory, but then compare them to how Hur portrayed the memory failures of everyone else in Hur's report. And if a journalist doesn't look for those points of comparison, then they are irresponsible and inept.

Apparently Trump's final four picks for VP are Rubio, Burgum, Scott, and Vance.

Which I say....good.  I was worried he'd pick a female VP (he can still pick Stefanik but apparently Noem is now out) which could help him with conservative female voters that hate Trump.  I guess Scott could help him with black men (who he's aggressively targeting).  Rubio could hypothetically help him with Hispanics, but Trump or him would have to change residency (and I think Rubio would have to leave the Senate to do that) so I don't know how that makes sense.

I don't see how Burgum helps him electorally at all.  Vance might help him win Ohio (which could be slightly more tossup with the abortion vote there), but it could also potentially lose them a senate seat if they win.

If Trump was smart, Haley would be the pick.  I know VP matters almost nothing electorally, but I do think the VP candidates in both cases would be helpful considering the age and unlikability of the candidates.  I do think Biden would be slightly more palatable with people if they loved his VP.  Since people hate Harris more than they hate Biden, that makes it feel like Biden has no one behind him if he does die in office.

https://x.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1799832693145739613

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/winn … jane-kleeb

Bits and pieces of hope from Simon Rosenberg.

Well, it depends on whether you're looking at aggregate polls averaged and thrown off by Republican-funded polls, or looking at independent polls.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/5-po … -new-biden

Biden has been taking a national lead in some of the polls (understanding that some of these polls are partisan), and he's closed the gap in the last few days to within a percentage point on 538's polling average.  More importantly, IMO, this is due to a combination of Biden gaining support and Trump losing support.  Right now, the polling average has Trump at 40.8% and Biden at 40.3%.  So while it's possible that Trump is shedding votes to "undecided" that he'll get back, there's a chance some of those votes are going from Trump to Biden...which is obviously the best results.

The blue wall in the Midwest also appears to be tracking towards Biden.  The polling average for Michigan is basically tied, the one in Wisconsin is within 0.2%, and Pennsylvania is now at 1%.  Even in the Sun Belt states, Biden is gaining but still about 5% down in all three states.

What's scary about the blue wall is that it 100% includes the Nebraska 2nd district.  If Biden wins PA, WI, and MI, and Trump wins GA, AZ, and NV, the Nebraska 2nd decides the election.  If Biden gets it, it's 270-268.  If Trump gets it, it's 269-269 and Trump wins in the tiebreak.  So the blue wall needs to be 4 pieces, not 3.

Even FOX News thinks Trump is on a losing streak.
https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/bide … ead-in-fox

Well, if you're nervous, do something about it. Something small and achieveable. Mail a pre-debate Gatorade and a Red Bull to the White House, Slider_Quinn21. :-)

I should note, Slider_Quinn21, that orange flavoured Gatorade is Joe Biden's drink of choice.

It's going pretty bad so far.  Biden looks old and Trump has been staying on point and not acting like a lunatic yet.

Still lots of time but I'm not loving it so far.

Preface: Biden is losing on the vast majority of polls, some are stunningly bad.  I read Rosenberg's Hopium thing, he is well meaning, and I concur that the polling is bad because it's way too Trumpy in who they're actually sampling.  That being said, I'm sorry, but they're not THAT far off, and not in the quantity.  aka they can't all be wrong, it's just math. 

First half: Might be the worst debate performance I've ever seen, of anybody, and Biden having it.  Trump is spewing nonsense, but he's coherent and Biden is horse and stammering badly.  He couldn't even win the abortion topic, and allowed Trump to go largely untouched on Jan 6th. 

Second half: Trump bitching about who tattled on his "suckers and losers" and these two idiots bickering over who's the worst President ever is just an embarrassment.  They wound up in a back and forth over their golf games.  Completely ridiculous.  Trump rambled, and Biden was slightly more legible when angry. 

Outcome: I do not see how Biden is the nominee.  His campaign claims he had a cold???  GTFO.  I warned about this months and months ago.  His largest hurdle was looking entirely incompetent on immigration, Afghanistan, and inflation, and Trump absolutely buried him with it.  Biden's retorts were mumbled and frankly it was startling to watch.  How can anyone seriously consider Biden for another four years after appearing like this?  He should have been replaced a year ago on the campaign.  Jill Biden, if she loves her husband, has to take him out of this campaign.  For his own dignity.  Joe Biden may be very good at making decisions, but you MUST be able to communicate in a campaign, and he is completely incapable of that now.

I agree with a lot of what you have to say about Biden which I'm happy to get into, but you're going to have to share your work here.  I look at polls almost daily, and I'm not seeing anything like what you're saying.  Basically every poll has them tied.  Biden has started taking the lead nationally, in Wisconsin, and in Michigan.  Pennsylvania is basically tied.  If those polls are accurate and Pennsylvania tips to Biden, Biden wins with 270 electoral votes.

Georgia is still looking rough.  Arizona is closing but not great.  But Nevada is closing.  Biden has gained a couple points and he led in a recent poll there.

So maybe I'm not looking at the same polls as you, or maybe you're getting talking points from someone who's listening too much to Trump.  But even if I give you "Biden is losing in the vast majority of polls" (which you could argue is true), I don't see *any* that are bad, let alone stunningly bad.  The polls that Biden is losing, he's losing by 1 point.  And some of the polls have Biden winning with registered voters and Trump winning with likely voters.  Which means Biden's voters are more likely (irony acknowledged) than Trump's are.  That's the issue with the shifting demographics - Republicans picked up a ton of voters but they're people that don't usually vote.  The ones they lost (college educated) usually vote in every election.

********

So, the debate.  I think the first 30 minutes was a disaster.  And the first 30 minutes is probably the parts that people watched.  I struggled to stay engaged, and even some of my liberal friends dropped out early.  So even though I think Biden got a lot better as the night went on, I don't know if anyone saw.  Or if anyone is going to care.

I had two thoughts last night.  First, it's so frustrating that we're in this position because it was avoidable.  But at the same time, I see why we're here.  I think it all goes back to the VP decision, and I think they needed to pick someone with less baggage.  I know Kamala had the experience you'd want, but I wish they'd found someone else.  I know there weren't a ton of choices, and I don't know if Stacey Abrams would've had any less baggage.  But if they could've found a black woman mayor or state representative or something, they could've spend 2020 to now building her up.  The problem is that the VP choice is the obvious successor, and if she's not the successor, you end up potentially upsetting black and/or female voters if they'd switched to, say, Gavin Newsom.  Even if it was an open primary, I think it would've potentially cost you the election right that.  So I think everyone agrees that they should've gone with someone else, but if that someone else HAD to be Harris, I think Biden is the right choice.  She's already more unpopular than Biden with less experience and her own baggage.  Not to mention racism or sexism.

My second thought is...I don't know if this performance really matters.  Biden looked old and fragile, but that's basically what people already thought of him. No one's opinion changed on Biden last night.  Maybe people forgot he was old and fragile and his polling might dip, but if they forgot before, they might forget again.

Biden's actual words and policies and performance weren't terrible.  He didn't say anything controversial, and he stood up to Trump a bunch of times.  I think the worst part of the debate for Biden is that Trump never really went on any crazy tangents.  He didn't start randomly talking about water pressure or sharks or stuff like that.  I think the more senile and crazy Trump looks, it sorta takes away the advantage.  If people walk away thinking that they're both old and/or senile, that's a huge win for Biden.  And that didn't really happen.

Trump did lie a ton, and he lied about stuff that's verifiable.  MAGA people won't care, but I assume independent voters know that there aren't after-birth abortions in any state.  Independent voters know that Pelosi isn't in charge of the national guard and can't override the president.  In all the stuff I've seen, Trump's lies and Biden's age are being reported side by side.  Some people might be okay with Trump's lies but not be okay with Biden's age.  Some people might be okay with Biden's age and not be okay with Trump's lies.  But in both cases, I gotta think those opinions are already baked into to most people's decision.  If Trump looks crazy or if Biden lies, that might do more to move the needle.

So it was bad.  Almost worst case scenario.  But I don't know if it was a doomsday scenario.  Not yet.  But the pressure is on Biden in the second debate now.  Which might lead to a doomsday scenario.

The biggest problem with the debate are the following: Biden had a cold. He was also on medication for this cold.

Biden didn't do well at first and did better after because he has a severe stutter. He was sick. He was forced to fact check his opponent while also having to give his answer in 2 minutes. If you've ever known someone with a severe stutter, then that kind of time frame which includes having to try to get that much information out is incredibly difficult.

Shame on CNN for not fact-checking or moderating properly. Shame on them for letting Trump tell lies like "doctors taking babies out of womb at nine months and killing them," which forced Biden to be the fact checker. Biden shouldn't have to do the fact checking but because Biden was doing the fact checking while sick and having a severe stutter, he fumbled a lot until he could get control.

Please note: if you look at all of his previous appearances and presentations and speeches in the last 2 to 3 months you will not see any major issues including during the State of the Union.

He's also done an amazing job as President we have the number one economy in the world. The World Bank even says we're holding up everybody else. But sure - because of all the propagandist BS, let's judge him completely on one bad performance while he's sick, having to fact check his lying opponent, AND get his point out in 2 minutes with a severe stutter.

Maybe his four year record is what we should be looking at not how he performed during a SINGLE debate where had to fact check someone who is a lying POS every time they open their mouth.

This will not change my vote one iota. It's still democrat - straight down the ticket.

Oh, I know your vote. I know that a lot of dems are nervous about last night. And deservedly so. But I think some of the assessments about President Biden are way out there and reek of propagandist junk, because they don't take into consideration the reality of some of what transpired.

I don't think Biden lost his fastball. I think his hands were tied by a couple of issues - namely, CNN's terrible moderation, his cold, and medication. I think if Biden were normal last night, he wouldn't have any issues and would have mopped the floor with Trump in more ways than one. I think he will show up 100% for the second debate and will (hopefully) be more prepared.

(Please note: I'm still enthusiastic about Biden.  I promise to make a donation to his campaign as soon as I press submit)

My friends and I had a thought experiment.  Let's say Biden talks with his people and decides it's best for the country that he not run.  There was some rumor by some random person on Twitter that perhaps Whitmer and Newsom are in play and that Harris is mad that she's not.  Let's say that's all true and Biden agrees.  Let's also say that the Democratic Party does something and convinces Harris to come out and enthusiastically support the next ticket.

For the thought experiment, Newsom is the presidential candidate and Whitmer is the VP candidate.  They instantly come out hard, and MAGA struggles to tear them down since most people don't know who they are.  Newsom can stand up to Trump in a way that Biden never did, and looks young and charismatic.  Whitmer is able to run circles around Scott or whoever Trump picks as VP. 

How does that feel?  I know almost nothing about either.  But Whitmer is very popular in Michigan - does that seal one of the six swing states for the new ticket?  Does it feel like turning the page? 

Or does California (and hatred of California) ruin Newsom?  Would America still be too sexist to elect Whitmer if she's the nominee?  Are the polls right and people actually like Biden more than him (or Whitmer) or does Biden inherit all the Biden voters plus any people on the fence?

I think its an interesting thought experiment.  I think it would rely exclusively on everyone being completely on board from Biden to Harris to the two candidates, and I think it would all need to be announced at once.  But would that work as a thought experiment?

Yeah, I'm hoping that's the case.  We need him to be this version.  Both as president and in the second debate.

Sent him some money

Holy cow.  If this guy was consistently showing up, Biden would be crushing it.  If he'd shown up in the debate, it would've been a totally different story.

We need *much* more of this in a *very* public forum, and the criticisms of him will fall apart.

Simon Rosenberg at Hopium Chronicles points out via Lawrence O'Donnell: two-thirds of voters didn't watch Biden's disastrous debate, which strikes me as peering out awkwardly from a car crash and saying, well, nobody saw it, so it's not that bad.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/lawr … -up-2-more

Maybe he's right.

It's a fair question. Why is the Democratic nominee someone so shaky and past his prime? Are we looking at another Hillary Clinton situation where Democrats are supporting someone who simply isn't capable?

Before the debate, a lot of pundits whom I respect remarked that Joe Biden is pretty good at politics and pretty good at being president.

In September 2023, Franklin Foer wrote that Joe Biden is good at politics:
https://www.salon.com/2023/09/13/joe-bi … klin-foer/

In March 2023, Dylan Matthews wrote on Vox that Joe Biden is pretty good at being president and should run again:
https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/3/1/2 … ala-harris

Today, Franklin Foer has reversed his tune:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … te/678823/

And Vox.com is filled with articles saying Biden should step down.

I don't know. In 2023, Biden seemed like the best bet to beat Donald Trump again. But that debate was shook me up, and shook a lot of people up, cold or no cold.

Yeah. About that cold. A cold might make a 40 year old look and sound 60. Was Joe's cold, at 81, making him look and sound like he was 200 years old?

I've been watching Joe Biden pretty closely five years. I've seen him work past word blocks and substitute incorrect words and names. I've watched his appearances in the last three months. I have never, ever heard Biden sound as hoarse or look as confused or disoriented as he did in his first 2024 presidential election debate.

I have, however, heard myself sound as awful and look as confused as Biden did; the past week, I've had COVID. Seven vaccinations are apparently enough to keep me out of the hospital but not from getting sick. My cough syrup makes me drowsy, the lack of sleep makes me hazy, the agony of my sore throat and the Advil that barely dulls it makes me shaky. I do not speak well. My mouth hangs open when I'm not speaking because my nose is too congested to otherwise breathe. My voice has become a tired mutter for the past several days.

I sound old and tired. I sound like Joe on debate night.

The next day at his rally, Joe was loud and fiery, but he coughed periodically, like his doctor had prescribed him some steroids to get his throat and nose clear enough to shout and yell as needed, but there was still some airway irritation.

Joe is 81, but a cold without the right medication could make him seem centuries older whereas a more-capably medicated cold would make him sound... well, younger and more energetic. The wheezy fellow of the debate was not the booming statesman of the rally the next day.

I hope I sound like Joe at his rally in the next few days.

Biden gave another great speech in NYC:
https://www.youtube.com/live/B7NyV_EENF … &t=597

Biden tries to calm nervous donors:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/2 … p-00165933

Biden insider confesses that following the debate, Biden felt "humiliated, devoid of confidence and painfully aware that the physical images of him at the debate — eyes staring into the distance, mouth agape — will live beyond his presidency, along with a performance that at times was meandering, incoherent and difficult to hear. 'It’s a mess,' this person said."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e … rcna159591

ireactions is fond of Joe Biden and shakes nervously.

I think one thing to remember is that Trump didn't actually have a great debate either.  Not only did he lie, but he lied about things that are pretty easily verified.  That might've turned off voters in the same way that Biden being old did.  In fact, like I said before, those are two very similar things.  People know Biden is old and *looks and sounds* old.  People know Trump is a liar.  Which one bothers people more?

When Trump said that "everyone wanted Roe v Wade overturned" that's both a lie and one that's easily known by the majority of Americans, including conservatives, that supported Roe before and after Dobbs.  When he said that babies are being killed after birth, that's a common sense thing that most people wouldn't believe.

Trump could easily say that "illegal immigration is bad" or "the border is not as secure as it should be" and people would probably agree with him.  The problem is that he says that millions of people are coming across the border and are killing people in ways that we could've never even considered in our worst nightmares, and people can easily verify if that's true.  The population of Arizona is 7.4 million people.  People in Arizona might notice if 1 out of 7 people were illegal immigrants.

It would be like if Biden said that climate change is a problem and that 2/3 of the country is now uninhabitable.  Or that most coastal states are now underwater.  It's a real problem that a lot of people agree with, but he's now taken it to such an insane level that he'd probably start to lose people.

So if people care about the lies, that's one thing.  Biden may be old but he's also president right now.  A Biden presidency isn't a hypothetical.  It's happening right now.  And if things keep going okay, I think people will be more okay with more of it.

*****

I say this as someone who's now made a few donations to Biden, but the idea of a Newsom/Whitmer ticket really comforted me after the debate.  The fiery Biden we saw recently has calmed me down a bit, but we need to keep seeing it.  I think the Democrats need to think long and hard about whether they should go all in with Biden.  I'm voting for the Democratic ticket no matter what (I'd vote for Hunter Biden and any running mate) and I'll enthusiastically support Biden if he's the guy.

But as someone who wants to win at (almost) any cost, I think it's prudent to consider alternatives.  Especially after post-debate polls start cementing.  I love Joe, and I want him to succeed.  But this is bigger than Joe or his ego or his pride.

This Washington Post article is paywalled, but eight Biden aides spoke anonymously with the Post. They report that their debate prep for Biden had prepared for every single question Biden ended up facing on debate night. Their practice sessions were detailed and meticulous, and readily anticipated pretty much every topic and situation.

Biden's team knew what was coming, and they had planned for all of it with the president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ing-event/

It seems to me that Biden's team knew and accepted there would be no fact checking or moderation and that Trump would lie and lie and lie and lie -- they prepared responses for Biden to deliver in these scenarios -- and then, on debate night, Biden was unable to deliver any of the rehearsed replies, delivering completely different answers than what they'd all planned and practiced.

The question is why?

Mika Brzezinski has offered her take: Biden's team overscheduled him with so much travel and so many events before the debate: back to back trips to France and Italy, then to Los Angeles for fundraisers. Biden's team sent him out on onto the evening debate stage exhausted by the whole day and the weeks leading up to it:

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch … 3993029565

The next day, Biden had slept and attended a morning event.

Biden's team, Brzezinski seems to suggest, is booking him like he's 51 instead of 81, and aren't managing his energy well. Brzezinski then went through Biden's tragic personal history and how many times his political career has been declared dead and over, followed by his win upon win upon win as president.