Biden Insiders Confess He Was Severely Cognitively Impaired

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

So it would have been Bernie Sanders in 2016!

[Anonymous]

Trump at the height of his power can not preform better Vs sleep joe!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Not true.

Correct. He was not diagnosed while in office. He was symptomatic, which is common in the years before formal diagnosis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

So it would have been Bernie Sanders in 2016!

Bernie is older than Trump, Clinton, and Biden.

[Anonymous]

Why are we talking about this now? We have bigger problems.

[Anonymous]

I'll take Biden and my old 401k back in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are we talking about this now? We have bigger problems.

It's apparently never the right time to talk about Democrat failures. We got shouted down during his administration. Then shouted down during the campaign. Then shouted down during Kamala's campaign. Now, years out from the next election with plenty of time to assess the mistakes of the previous administration in order to make a better showing next time, it's still apparently not okay to discuss the fact that these people lied to us on a daily basis for months maybe even years.

Trump is a disaster. The Democrats are our only real alternative. If we can't hold them accountable, then we may as well accept that our government no longer belongs to us. We get whoever and whatever the elites decide is good for them and good enough for us.

If you refuse to make your own party accountable to you, it's not your party. You're just cosigning whatever they tell you to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are we talking about this now? We have bigger problems.

For that precise reason: they’d like you to stop talking about those bigger problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll take Biden and my old 401k back in a heartbeat.

+1000! It is not even a close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we talking about this now? We have bigger problems.

For that precise reason: they’d like you to stop talking about those bigger problems.

And you probably call Trump supporters brainwashed, but hand waive away any criticism of Democrats as distraction. You are no different than that which you hate. We need MAGA to snap out of it, and we need blu MAGA to also snap out of it if we want to have any shot at saving our democracy.

[Anonymous]

So is Trump. He can’t even speak a full, coherent sentence. People like Elon Musk, Laura Loomer and Stephen Miller are running the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What specious argument? You mean the same argument that past Presidents have used to reclaim their Article II powers from the Legislative Branch? Please provide your 100% infallible argument that President Trump is acting outside his constitutional authority. If this were the case, impeachment and removal from office would be a slam dunk. But it's not, and you know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Not true.

His son Ron said he had Alzheimer's in the White House.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/17/ronald-reagan-alzheimers-president-son

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we talking about this now? We have bigger problems.

It's apparently never the right time to talk about Democrat failures. We got shouted down during his administration. Then shouted down during the campaign. Then shouted down during Kamala's campaign. Now, years out from the next election with plenty of time to assess the mistakes of the previous administration in order to make a better showing next time, it's still apparently not okay to discuss the fact that these people lied to us on a daily basis for months maybe even years.

Trump is a disaster. The Democrats are our only real alternative. If we can't hold them accountable, then we may as well accept that our government no longer belongs to us. We get whoever and whatever the elites decide is good for them and good enough for us.

If you refuse to make your own party accountable to you, it's not your party. You're just cosigning whatever they tell you to.

The only way to make democrats accountable is to refuse to vote them in. The alternative sucks but it’s still better than modern day democrats.