Bombshell WSJ Report Confirms What We All Knew: The Dems Lied Through Their Teeth About Biden's Senility

[Fluffypants]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You lie about this stuff all the time, but the good news is it doesn't actually destroy your credibility. You never had any.

You should just have him on ignore like I do, the headaches caused by his brand of stupid have diminished greatly.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

You should just have him on ignore like I do, the headaches caused by his brand of stupid have diminished greatly.

 LOL well i'm not a fan of ignore - and frankly i find his stupidity mildly amusing, like a cat chasing a lazer pointer    But i'll admit i don't generally take the time to read him much   

[WestCanMan]

A few years from now the whole "Biden is mentally fit as a fiddle" false narrative will have been forgotten, and NBC et al will pretend that they always acknowledged it. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

A few years from now the whole "Biden is mentally fit as a fiddle" false narrative will have been forgotten, and NBC et al will pretend that they always acknowledged it. 

This is it exactly and they will point to article after article that proves it. But they won't mention that those articles all came out afterwards.

We already see this kind of behavior with the Biden notebook thing. Whaaaaaat? Repressed the story? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa!? we were all over it! "

[gatomontes99]

Quote

"As a reporter, I have a confession to make: I should have pushed harder earlier for more information about Joe Biden’s mental and physical well-being and any signs of decline. ... the White House and the people around Joe Biden were absolutely adamant that suggesting anything — asking the question about whether he was in some physical, mental, or both decline — was offensive. ‘How could you? It’s age shaming.’ And I think that impacted me at some level because, while I did ask the question from time to time — not directly to the White House, but aides and people in that orbit — I didn’t really push on it if I’m being honest,” he continued.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/i-should-have-pushed-harder-ex-cnn-analyst-apologizes-for-not-probing-into-biden-s-decline-sooner/ar-AA1wbHt2

This is from Chris Cillizza, a former CNN analyst. Do you get what he's saying here? He's saying he intentionally ignored the story because the WH told him to. He's making the excuse that he didn't want to be thought of as being insensitive. But he's telling you that he heard the WH message and that message was, don't look into it, so he didn't.

[impartialobserver]

My guess is that they thought that having Biden run in 2024 was the only way to possibly prevent Trump from winning. I am not so sure that he would have done better than Kamala Harris. 

[Fluffypants]

On 12/20/2024 at 6:38 PM, CdnFox said:

 LOL well i'm not a fan of ignore - and frankly i find his stupidity mildly amusing, like a cat chasing a lazer pointer    But i'll admit i don't generally take the time to read him much   

Neither am I to be honest but Robo is a troll, he has all the markings of one. Demands evidence of well known facts that if he didn't  know a simple google search would prove out.

When you do cite a source he complains about the source even when there is legitimate video of the person say or doing something embedded in the article. Yet treats left wing sources as the gospel with little more than an anonymous source to go on while ignoring the mounting evidence it didn't happen.

He still cites the Losers story about the troops, while everyone including those that came out against Trump said it never happened.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Fluffypants said:

Neither am I to be honest but Robo is a troll, he has all the markings of one. Demands evidence of well known facts that if he didn't  know a simple google search would prove out.

When you do cite a source he complains about the source even when there is legitimate video of the person say or doing something embedded in the article. Yet treats left wing sources as the gospel with little more than an anonymous source to go on while ignoring the mounting evidence it didn't happen.

He still cites the Losers story about the troops, while everyone including those that came out against Trump said it never happened.

Oh you can't take him seriously or anything, that would be a huge mistake. You just have to think of him as more of a "Rosco P Coltraine" sort of character from the Dukes of hazard or the like  

Then it all makes sense. 

[Fluffypants]

On 12/23/2024 at 11:29 AM, impartialobserver said:

My guess is that they thought that having Biden run in 2024 was the only way to possibly prevent Trump from winning. I am not so sure that he would have done better than Kamala Harris. 

They were behind the 8 ball with this election, they didn't want to waste one of their emerging candidates when they knew they were probably going to lose. They couldn't run a campaign on Biden's accomplishments so they were hoping their lawfare was going to work.

Once the billionaires threatened to turn off the money spigots if Biden didn't step down they had to replace him but they could kill one 2 bird with one stones they could keep the money flowing and let Kamala run so they never have to let her run again.

They did a quick analysis and they figured they were probably going to lose but they had to keep the money flowing and the didn't want to get spanked in the down ballot. They tricked so many people into thinking Kamala was good candidate when just a year ago they were trying to replace her as VP. This whole campaign was a giant money laundering scheme.