Biden Insiders Confess He Was Severely Cognitively Impaired

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this point I'll take Dementia Joe over Destructive Dementia Donnie ant day of the week.

And, Republicans seriously need to stop lying, gaslighting and covering his dementia over. It is plain as day to see.

Your idiotic progressive agendas are being crushed and you don't like it. Good.

Even your tepid Rs will revolt.

Trump will have to go full on military dictator on him.

You won't like it or maybe you will
Good

[Anonymous]

I was so worried we would nominate him again! What a relief! Good thing the current occupant of the White House is a stable genius surrounded by only the best and brightest and is leading our country to new heights!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In any state of cognitive powers (which is totally Trumper bunk), Biden always upheld the Constitution and didn't act like the other 2 branches of government didn't exist.

You don't remember that he signed an order to forgive student loans--while admitting it was unconstitutional?

Also, Trump seems to be reclaiming Article II powers seized by the other branches. This has been done before by past presidents. That's upholding the Constitution. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if he's right or wrong. In the case of Biden claiming the power to forgive student loans, he never had it in the first place, but was casting about aimlessly to try and keep a campaign promise.

Tell us these great Presidents

I know you'll pull out some names but your side always leaves out something.

Try to keep it in the 20th century if you can

Certainly.

President Biden (successful) - Collins v. Yellen - The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 violated the separation of powers by creating a single director for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, removable by the President only “for cause.” On the day of the decision, President Joe Biden moved forward with replacing FHFA director, Mark A. Calabria, who had been appointed under Donald Trump, "with an appointee who reflects the Administration's values".

President Obama (successful) - Zivotofsky v. Kerry - Under the Reception Clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, only the President may grant formal recognition to a foreign sovereign, and Congress may not pass a law under its own authority to grant formal recognition or require the President to override a prior official determination of recognition. It was an improper act for Congress to “aggrandiz[e] its power at the expense of another branch” by requiring the President to contradict an earlier recognition determination in an official document issued by the Executive Branch. Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U. S. 868, 878 (1991) . To allow Congress to control the President’s communication in the context of a formal recognition determination is to allow Congress to exercise that exclusive power itself. As a result, the statute is unconstitutional. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a concurring opinion.

President Obama (failed) - NLRB v. Canning - The Recess Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess—intra-session or inter-session—of sufficient length, but three days is not sufficient length. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Breyer, writing for the Court, stated, "We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business."

President Reagan (successful) - Bowsher v. Synar - The court held that the Comptroller General's role in exercising executive functions under the Act's deficit reduction process violated the constitutionally imposed doctrine of separation of powers because the Comptroller General is removable only by a congressional joint resolution or by impeachment, and Congress may not retain the power of removal over an officer performing executive powers. To permit the execution of the laws to be vested in an officer answerable only to Congress would, in practical terms, reserve in Congress control of the execution of the laws. The structure of the Constitution does not permit Congress to execute the laws; it follows that Congress cannot grant to an officer under its control what it does not possess.

Oh my gosh, you are so smart

Now come back and list what Trump has done with his "powers." You had better warm up your keyboard

I think that typing will tire you out.

A list was requested and provided. Didn't expect that, did you? Now you want something different. Then again, it doesn't matter what you want. It's up to the Supreme Court, as it has always been.

[Anonymous]

Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's his entire last term as president. I have no doubt that as soon as trump is dead there will be a book by every member of his cabinet that Trump had Alzheimer's.

There is an age minimum for President, House members and Senate members. We need an age maximum and it should be that no one over age 70 is eligible for president, vice president, House or Senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In any state of cognitive powers (which is totally Trumper bunk), Biden always upheld the Constitution and didn't act like the other 2 branches of government didn't exist.

You don't remember that he signed an order to forgive student loans--while admitting it was unconstitutional?

Also, Trump seems to be reclaiming Article II powers seized by the other branches. This has been done before by past presidents. That's upholding the Constitution. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if he's right or wrong. In the case of Biden claiming the power to forgive student loans, he never had it in the first place, but was casting about aimlessly to try and keep a campaign promise.

Tell us these great Presidents

I know you'll pull out some names but your side always leaves out something.

Try to keep it in the 20th century if you can

Certainly.

President Biden (successful) - Collins v. Yellen - The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 violated the separation of powers by creating a single director for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, removable by the President only “for cause.” On the day of the decision, President Joe Biden moved forward with replacing FHFA director, Mark A. Calabria, who had been appointed under Donald Trump, "with an appointee who reflects the Administration's values".

President Obama (successful) - Zivotofsky v. Kerry - Under the Reception Clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, only the President may grant formal recognition to a foreign sovereign, and Congress may not pass a law under its own authority to grant formal recognition or require the President to override a prior official determination of recognition. It was an improper act for Congress to “aggrandiz[e] its power at the expense of another branch” by requiring the President to contradict an earlier recognition determination in an official document issued by the Executive Branch. Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U. S. 868, 878 (1991) . To allow Congress to control the President’s communication in the context of a formal recognition determination is to allow Congress to exercise that exclusive power itself. As a result, the statute is unconstitutional. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a concurring opinion.

President Obama (failed) - NLRB v. Canning - The Recess Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess—intra-session or inter-session—of sufficient length, but three days is not sufficient length. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Breyer, writing for the Court, stated, "We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business."

President Reagan (successful) - Bowsher v. Synar - The court held that the Comptroller General's role in exercising executive functions under the Act's deficit reduction process violated the constitutionally imposed doctrine of separation of powers because the Comptroller General is removable only by a congressional joint resolution or by impeachment, and Congress may not retain the power of removal over an officer performing executive powers. To permit the execution of the laws to be vested in an officer answerable only to Congress would, in practical terms, reserve in Congress control of the execution of the laws. The structure of the Constitution does not permit Congress to execute the laws; it follows that Congress cannot grant to an officer under its control what it does not possess.

Which one of those involves completely disrupting the rule of law?

What does "disrupting the rule of law" mean? The President believes he is properly exercising his Article II powers, which would seem to be upholding the rule of law. It is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether he is right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In any state of cognitive powers (which is totally Trumper bunk), Biden always upheld the Constitution and didn't act like the other 2 branches of government didn't exist.

No threats posted online to judges you disagree with. And Biden never acted like he was a Russian agent. Never confused who our ALLIES were.

In any age he was better than Trump, the dictator

No they posted the threats right outside their houses, with protests by Friends of Jane. An assassination attempt on Brett Kavanaugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any state of cognitive powers (which is totally Trumper bunk), Biden always upheld the Constitution and didn't act like the other 2 branches of government didn't exist.

No threats posted online to judges you disagree with. And Biden never acted like he was a Russian agent. Never confused who our ALLIES were.

In any age he was better than Trump, the dictator

No they posted the threats right outside their houses, with protests by Friends of Jane. An assassination attempt on Brett Kavanaugh.

Let's not forget what Sen. Schumer said: "I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any state of cognitive powers (which is totally Trumper bunk), Biden always upheld the Constitution and didn't act like the other 2 branches of government didn't exist.

No threats posted online to judges you disagree with. And Biden never acted like he was a Russian agent. Never confused who our ALLIES were.

In any age he was better than Trump, the dictator

No they posted the threats right outside their houses, with protests by Friends of Jane. An assassination attempt on Brett Kavanaugh.

There was never an assassination attempt on Brett Kavanaugh. Why does this trope continued to be repeated?

A guy had a mental breakdown in Chevy Chase MD...at no time was Kavanugh's life in danger and there was never an overt threat in any manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np. I hate this for us. Biden and his team should’ve never allowed him to run a second term. They screwed up and gave us Trump.

This. I’ve been seeing the advance quotes from these books and dreading this inevitable thread.

NP. Well, as you can see the Democratic Party loyalists here are mostly pretending it was all fine. Nothing will penetrate their self-delusion.

DP. I'm horrified at how the country has devolved into two cults of utterly corrupt, power-hungry partisans who care only about feuding and winning, with the rest of us caught between them in bewilderment. I had long had a low opinion of the right. Seeing since the pandemic how there's virtually nothing Democrats can't justify as long as it's their side doing it has filled me with contempt for them too. The nation is screwed under either party and I don't see a way out.

Agree. It’s ridiculous to see Democrats defending what was an absolute lie about Biden’s state. This was a national emergency. The man had access to nuclear codes. And now we are supposed to pretend it was no big deal? It’s morally and ethically bankrupt behavior.

We are so screwed. Either party is awful, they both destroy and lie, and we all lose.

The parties are not equally bad. One is a flawed political party, the other will do whatever the cult leader orders.

Double masking outdoors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any state of cognitive powers (which is totally Trumper bunk), Biden always upheld the Constitution and didn't act like the other 2 branches of government didn't exist.

No threats posted online to judges you disagree with. And Biden never acted like he was a Russian agent. Never confused who our ALLIES were.

In any age he was better than Trump, the dictator

No they posted the threats right outside their houses, with protests by Friends of Jane. An assassination attempt on Brett Kavanaugh.

There was never an assassination attempt on Brett Kavanaugh. Why does this trope continued to be repeated?

A guy had a mental breakdown in Chevy Chase MD...at no time was Kavanugh's life in danger and there was never an overt threat in any manner.

Well, Chief Justice Roberts felt that Sen. Schumer's statement was a threat:

Roberts said, "Statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous." "All members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter," Roberts said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, no one give a f*ck. Seriously. Even if this is true, he is gone from politics and we now have a madman in office.

Get over it. There are much bigger issues to focus on right now.

Because no one gave a f*ck in the Democratic Party that’s why we now have a madman in office.

Fool me once with Hillary getting Trump elected, shame on you

Fool me twice with Biden getting Trump elected, she on me

You are responsible for the state of the country.

LOL, what?!?! So all the people who voted for Trump bear no responsibility for Trump winning the election? You have to be kidding.

They COULD have voted for Nikki Haley in the primary but they went for Trump because why????

There was one primary where Trump wasn't on the ballot but Nikki Haley was, and she lost to 'none of the above'. Richard Pryor was smiling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, no one give a f*ck. Seriously. Even if this is true, he is gone from politics and we now have a madman in office.

Get over it. There are much bigger issues to focus on right now.

Right? File the post under No Shit Sherlock. And then move on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Five months ago, the cover of The Economist, a conservative magazine, had a photo of a roll of money taking off like a rocket with the title: “American Economy: The Envy of the World”


Either you Biden bashers are stupid, or Russian and Chinese trolls.

He served honorably for his whole life. He got old. You will too. At least he had the integrity and professionalism to have good people around him who did their jobs well. Unlike our current criminal in chief.

Stop. The President should be of sound mind. And their administration is supposed to be forthright about his ability to carry out his duties. They lied to us and it's not okay. That can be true, while also acknowledging that the previous administration is still preferable to what we have now, but let's stop pretending the Biden Administration didn't also mess up.

[Anonymous]

Biden and his enablers decision to run for reelection is the original sin that led to the current disaster. Given all we know about Biden's cognitive and physical decline, it is unforgivable that the Biden family, the DNC, donors, and Democratic leaders conspired to keep this rapidly declining 83 year old geriatric in the Oval Office. If instead there had been a free and open primary, we would not be here today. Frankly, there should be criminal investigations into the Democrats responsible for destroying the reputations of people like Special Counsel Robert Hur who tried to warn people about Biden's unfitness for the presidency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In any state of cognitive powers (which is totally Trumper bunk), Biden always upheld the Constitution and didn't act like the other 2 branches of government didn't exist.

You don't remember that he signed an order to forgive student loans--while admitting it was unconstitutional?

Also, Trump seems to be reclaiming Article II powers seized by the other branches. This has been done before by past presidents. That's upholding the Constitution. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if he's right or wrong. In the case of Biden claiming the power to forgive student loans, he never had it in the first place, but was casting about aimlessly to try and keep a campaign promise.

Tell us these great Presidents

I know you'll pull out some names but your side always leaves out something.

Try to keep it in the 20th century if you can

Certainly.

President Biden (successful) - Collins v. Yellen - The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 violated the separation of powers by creating a single director for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, removable by the President only “for cause.” On the day of the decision, President Joe Biden moved forward with replacing FHFA director, Mark A. Calabria, who had been appointed under Donald Trump, "with an appointee who reflects the Administration's values".

President Obama (successful) - Zivotofsky v. Kerry - Under the Reception Clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, only the President may grant formal recognition to a foreign sovereign, and Congress may not pass a law under its own authority to grant formal recognition or require the President to override a prior official determination of recognition. It was an improper act for Congress to “aggrandiz[e] its power at the expense of another branch” by requiring the President to contradict an earlier recognition determination in an official document issued by the Executive Branch. Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U. S. 868, 878 (1991) . To allow Congress to control the President’s communication in the context of a formal recognition determination is to allow Congress to exercise that exclusive power itself. As a result, the statute is unconstitutional. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a concurring opinion.

President Obama (failed) - NLRB v. Canning - The Recess Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess—intra-session or inter-session—of sufficient length, but three days is not sufficient length. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Breyer, writing for the Court, stated, "We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business."

President Reagan (successful) - Bowsher v. Synar - The court held that the Comptroller General's role in exercising executive functions under the Act's deficit reduction process violated the constitutionally imposed doctrine of separation of powers because the Comptroller General is removable only by a congressional joint resolution or by impeachment, and Congress may not retain the power of removal over an officer performing executive powers. To permit the execution of the laws to be vested in an officer answerable only to Congress would, in practical terms, reserve in Congress control of the execution of the laws. The structure of the Constitution does not permit Congress to execute the laws; it follows that Congress cannot grant to an officer under its control what it does not possess.

Which one of those involves completely disrupting the rule of law?

What does "disrupting the rule of law" mean? The President believes he is properly exercising his Article II powers, which would seem to be upholding the rule of law. It is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether he is right.

Nobody who has even a sliver of knowledge of the U.S. Constitution will believe this completely specious argument.