I'm old enough to remember his "war on cancer" from nearly fifty years ago. This is not like the space program, which inspired the phrase, "If we can put a man on the moon, then surely we can....(fill in the blank)!"

Speaking of the moon landing, next month is the 50th anniversary of that historic event. Other than a Dunkin Donuts promotion, I haven't seen anybody making any reference to it. And both Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins from the Apollo 11 mission are still alive.

Buzz and Michael, I have not assigned you to the dust bins of history. Your service and military accomplishments are admired by a grateful generation.

some public recognition of their achievement, and another chance to admire the example of Neil Armstrong, as well. I don't doubt that the Dotard has already approached them, and they've turned him down.

You sound like those who mocked Obama for his speech saying we'll stop the rise of the oceans.

Lots of right-wingers attacked Obama for his rhetoric, specifically in a speech he gave when he crossed the delegate threshold to secure the nomination:

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-was-moment-when-rise-of-oceans.html

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-was-moment-when-rise-of-oceans.html

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-garton-ash-obama-assessment-20141015-story.html

Good to see these lame, small-minded and petty attacks are returning.

From the link you provided, Obama said that

"if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..."

"I promise you, if I'm elected president, you're going to see the single most important thing that changes in America, we're going to cure cancer."

It's no different. Except it's probably more likely we cure cancer than slow the rise of oceans.

...you don't think we could have slowed the rise of the oceans? That's what he was suggesting in that 2008 speech. And I think he was right, that's what science was saying. And presumably, we could still do it today, unless you're among those who believe we've passed the point of no return.

But no, I doubt our selection of president will determine whether or not we cure cancer by 2024.

I can't understand how you can say it's no different.

One was saying IF we committed to it, we would be able to accomplish something which was genuinely seen by experts as accomplishable.

The other is saying that if we vote for him, something will definitely happen that, realistically, no one has that kind of control over.

And no, I do not believe we would have stemmed the rising oceans beyond massively radical policies that essentially took us back to the stone age.

To be honest, I can't understand how you think they're not similar - and why you feel it's appropriate to attack a man whose son died for wanting to find a cure for cancer and committing to finding that cure during his presidency. It makes you look really small right now.

And if you don't think we can slow the rising sea levels, then what's the point of doing anything about climate change? Because if we can do something about climate change, then we will indeed slow the rising sea levels. If you don't think that's possible without going back to the stone age, then do you prefer the Republican alternative of doing nothing to try to slow climate change?

And I don't mean that as an insult, I think you can be a Democrat in general yet still believe that, when it comes to climate change, we should adapt to what happens as it happens rather than try to prevent it from happening. It's not the typical Dem position, but it's not entirely indefensible, and it's okay for a Dem to have an occasional position where they agree with the other side. But typically, Dems believe that we can do things to slow climate change, which by definition also means we can slow the rise of sea levels. I think that few believe we have a realistic path toward a certain cure for cancer near term.

So yeah, I see a big difference between saying "If we commit ourselves, scientists say we can accomplish X" rather than "Elect me, and I promise we will do what few scientists think can be done."

Biden can promise to prioritize and commit resources. That's fine. But personal tragedy does not justify promising results that may be beyond anyone's ability to deliver. It's not being small, it's being realistic.

Look, I get it. We have to get a bit desperate to support our candidate. I'm sure I've been there. This is primary season and I get it's silly. I fully understand that we gotta cling to these statements as a way to attack (and yes, you are attacking him). But it does no one any good to zero in on this statement. It just comes across as sad. Biden is clearly very invested in this and mocking it as dumb, wanting to find a cure for cancer during his presidency, is probably an unrealistic goal - but you know what? I'd rather he be advocating for that then a lot of other trash we see. Moreover, mocking him for it, belittling the idea, conflating it with Trump, is exactly what the right did with some of Obama's bold promises. We should be better than that. But I guess Silly Season has started early.

With the death of his son to cancer.. that has been the focus in his life..

what side they are on. Beating trump is all that matters, but too many folks here don't get it.

Or any other possible weaknesses we see?

Does not mentioning them mean they don't exist? Does it mean that Trump won't exploit them?

I hope Biden qualifies his remarks on this in the future. Because I don't want to see a Trump-Biden debate where Trump says, "And get a load of this guy. Biden promises to cure cancer. That's right, he thinks he's gonna cure cancer! Who the hell can promise to cure cancer? What suckers are gonna fall for that?"

You say beating trump is all that matters... but pointing out weaknesses in our candidates is important because beating Trump is all that matters.

But theres a right way and wrong way to PHRASE it too

But there's nothing wrong in having a genuine, aspirational message about advancing research to combat and eventually cure cancer. The disease is a scourge around the world and has been with us since antiquity. In fact, the disease is written into our very DNA. Anyone who has watched a beloved family member die of cancer (like Joe Biden) would be passionate about the subject.

We're making progress in cancer research but more is needed. If Biden wishes to continue his Moon Shot effort while in office? I'm all for it! Frankly, I don't know why anyone else wouldn't be supportive, too, since cancer is an ugly, common denominator for a majority of families.

Please also see post #8.

Do you or don't you want to beat trump? I don't attack the Dems running. Those that do make me wonder whose side they are really on.

I'll have to ask my sister-in-law now battling Stage 4 pancreatic cancer if she cares diddley-squat about delivery and/or if she finds the idea of a POTUS aggressively pursuing and advocating cancer research in any way appealing.

I think we both know the answer.

This particular criticism is petty and lame.

...without saying things that sound ridiculous.

And you were assigned this one? Better luck next time!!!

People here are individuals. Moreover, your response doesn't address the point at all, it just comes back with a kind of ad hominem attack.

of the comments folks make. I don't attack other candidates why do folks attack mine?

...at least once they start getting any decent level of support.

If you want a "safe space" then stick with the specific candidate groups. That's where, for example, you can communicate with like-minded Biden supporters who don't want consideration of any possible shortcomings. But in the general primary section, all candidates can be discussed in terms of both their strengths AND their weaknesses or missteps.

A good dem would actually provide resources and support
in the effort to cure cancer. Biden is a good Dem.

Any Reep would just be spouting a soundbyte to sucker in
people.

Even with food and food supplements.

Broccoli -

https://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2019/05/16/broccoli-an-unlikely-place-to-find-a-possible-new-anti-cancer-compound/#3eac5b971b17

My brother talks about lycopene for a healthy prostate. It blocks the bad testosterone as well as being a great antioxident.

And I've been reading about new compounds that boost chemotherapy.

Progress is being made, and if Biden directs more resources in that direction, it's quite possible.

Oh well.

And you can enhance your telomeres with endurance exercise - and nitric oxide.

As long as cells die and regenerate mistakes will occur. Genetic predispositions are a perpetual reality unless radical steps are taken to interfere with reproduction and natural development.
Cancer may be prevented or delayed or successfully treated. Some may want to call those successful interference and intervention a cure, but cancer is as curable as death.
An aspiration to find more and better strategies is a laudable goal and should include improving healthcare delivery rather than a goal to not need it at all.