biden watch

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
The average idiot of today is finally catching on. I've known his true character since 1977 when he explained that he didn't want to send his kids to public school because he didn't want them raised in a "racial jungle".

IMG_20230926_170540.jpg
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
The thought just struck me that an anti gun nut like Joe Biden naming his kid Hunter demonstrates a massive dichotomy in his thinking. How does he ever name his kid Hunter because he's been anti gun his entire political career?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The thought just struck me that an anti gun nut like Joe Biden naming his kid Hunter demonstrates a massive dichotomy in his thinking. How does he ever name his kid Hunter because he's been anti gun his entire political career?

Cognitive dissonance.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
.https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/disaster-concern-saturday-september?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

I won’t bore you with the details of the democrats’ comedic shenanigans and the Republicans’ short opening presentation of evidence. It was more interesting to watch the narrative shifting in real time. Instead of parroting the original mantra of “no evidence,” NPR has moved on to Adjective City, now claiming Republicans haven’t presented “clear evidence” of bribery, or “impeachable evidence” of bribery, or “concrete evidence” of bribery.

In other words, they are admitting there’s evidence.

All of NPR’s weaselly adjectives modifying the word ‘evidence’ are just NPR’s opinion, not news. Either the Republicans presented evidence or they didn’t. And apparently, they did. The Republicans even admitted during the hearing that they are still seeking more evidence than the thousands of pages of emails, texts, and bank records they already have, which is what justified the impeachment inquiry in the first place.

NPR did accurately quote Constitutional expert and Professor Jonathan Turley:
“I do believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden. In the current impeachment inquiry, the House has proceeded correctly, in my view, by taking this step only after months of preliminary investigations into the alleged corruption scandal involving the President and his family. Indeed, a majority of the public reportedly favor this impeachment inquiry on that very ground.”

NPR didn’t quote Committee Chairman James Comer’s cogent summary:

“We have established in the first phase of this investigation where this money has come from: Ukraine, Romania, Russia, Kazakhstan, China, it didn’t come from selling anything legitimate…it was funneled through shell companies and third parties to hide the Biden’s fingerprints. This deserves investigation, this deserves accountability, the American people expect this Committee to investigate public corruption…the witnesses today have all identified the evidence the Committee has uncovered as deserving further inquiry. And that is what this Committee will do, no matter where the evidence leads.”

It is a well-established legal principle that evidence of an attempt to conceal something is also evidence of consciousness of guilt. So.

During this first hearing, the Oversight Committee: presented evidence of more than 20 shady, unexplained shell companies created by the Bidens and their allies, presented direct evidence of Biden family members raking in over $24 million dollars from China, Ukraine, Russia, Romania, and other antagonistic foreign countries, identified nine different members of Biden’s extended family who have joined in or benefited from the various unorthodox business schemes, and confirmed that Joe Biden interacted with his family’s business associates in the deals at least two dozen times.

Under any standard, that is evidence. It’s a LOT of evidence. And this is only the beginning. Cue President Newsom, I mean Governor Newsom, to the rescue. The script writes itself: Now that Biden is no longer president, what’s the point?

🔥 The plot thickened yesterday when Reuters ran a problematic story headlined, “Robert Kennedy Jr to run as independent, could complicate Trump, Biden 2024 contest.”

image 10.png

In a YouTube video published yesterday, democrat Robert Kennedy, Jr. hinted at a major announcement on October 9th, explaining that "I'll be speaking about a sea change in American politics," he said, decrying corruption in "both parties."

Just about everybody believes Kennedy plans to announce switching to run as an independent.

Here’s the problem, as Reuters sees it. Lots of concerns:

Democrats have expressed concern that any third-party bid could draw votes away from Biden, 80, who faces concerns about the economy and his age in an expected rematch against the Republican frontrunner and presumed nominee Trump, 77.

Nice softball. Biden will be lucky if his only problems are the economy and his age.

Reuters reassured readers by claiming more Republicans like Kennedy than democrats, according to polls, and that the ultimate effect of an independent run is unclear. But not everyone agrees with Reuter’s rosy assessment. Here’s Newsweek’s pessimistic headline from last week:
image 15.png

The Newsweek article began with this ominous warning: “A third of Democratic voters would likely vote for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. if he runs as an independent in the 2024 presidential election, according to a new (Rasmussen) survey, potentially handing victory to Donald Trump.”

What do you think? Will an independent Kennedy help or hurt Republicans in the general election?
 
Top