Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How anyone isn’t troubled by this is crazy.

This just enforces what I’ve been bothered by for over a year now. I think Biden is selfish as hell for running again at 80+.

It’s absolutely ridiculous.

I swear, I still hope he decides to retire. It’s not too late—though he’s leaving us in a bind to quickly find someone willing and able to take over the reigns of a monumentally important presidential campaign.

If Joe (selfishly) decides to stay in the race, I’ll vote for him because I’m not an idiot. But I’ll be pissed.

I’m a moderate dem and a Black woman, and I am ready for the 70+ crew to step aside.

[NP]

I think he’d love to be retired. In fact, he didn’t even want to run last time. And it turned it down once before. He ran because he’d win- and spare us from dealing with Trump again. Running is the most selfless thing he could do.

Anonymous wrote:I’m so pleased to see the MAGAs newfound trust in DOJ. You all now agree that Trump is guilty of the serious felonies he’s accused of, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden totally and completely exonerated.

You clearly read a different report than the official report read by the rest of the world.

Anonymous wrote:I’m so pleased to see the MAGAs newfound trust in DOJ. You all now agree that Trump is guilty of the serious felonies he’s accused of, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How anyone isn’t troubled by this is crazy.

This just enforces what I’ve been bothered by for over a year now. I think Biden is selfish as hell for running again at 80+.

It’s absolutely ridiculous.

I swear, I still hope he decides to retire. It’s not too late—though he’s leaving us in a bind to quickly find someone willing and able to take over the reigns of a monumentally important presidential campaign.

If Joe (selfishly) decides to stay in the race, I’ll vote for him because I’m not an idiot. But I’ll be pissed.

I’m a moderate dem and a Black woman, and I am ready for the 70+ crew to step aside.

[NP]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like another burrowed right winger wrote a report to throw a bone.

Not burrowed. Hur was appointed by Trump. Garland is such a dummy for appointing people who are obviously bad faith actors. Notice that the Trump AGs didn’t appoint democratic Obama appointees as special counsels!

This is further outgrowth of the pathetic, weak "When they go low, we go high!" horseshit that led to Dick Cheney retaining his liberty, etc.

The Democratic Party leadership is just pathetically weak - it's embarrassing, actually. The incoming curb stomping from the Republicans is, unfortunately, well deserved. What a mess.

Your complaints are confusing. Hur is not charging him. He could. He isn’t.

Confusing? Garland, in apparent Democratic Party tradition, wanted to appear well above board so he appointed Hur without consideration of the president who had appointed him. Do you think a Republican AG would have done that?

Look, the leadership of the Democratic Party is riddled with weak idiots. Just think of the past 20 years. Weak idiots when Pres. Obama was enabled to "turn the page" and not go after Cheney and the neocons for their handiwork around OIF. Weak idiots when Sen. Gillibrand was enabled to snipe Sen. Franken.

Time and again, we show up to knife fights and gun fights with our "dukes up", ready to engage like an old timey boxer. And time and again, we get our asses handed to us. Am I seriously the only person tiring of this?

The Republican Party doesn't need to be "on their game" to beat us. I guess we do most of the work for them!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like another burrowed right winger wrote a report to throw a bone.

Not burrowed. Hur was appointed by Trump. Garland is such a dummy for appointing people who are obviously bad faith actors. Notice that the Trump AGs didn’t appoint democratic Obama appointees as special counsels!

This is further outgrowth of the pathetic, weak "When they go low, we go high!" horseshit that led to Dick Cheney retaining his liberty, etc.

The Democratic Party leadership is just pathetically weak - it's embarrassing, actually. The incoming curb stomping from the Republicans is, unfortunately, well deserved. What a mess.

Your complaints are confusing. Hur is not charging him. He could. He isn’t.

Confusing? Garland, in apparent Democratic Party tradition, wanted to appear well above board so he appointed Hur without consideration of the president who had appointed him. Do you think a Republican AG would have done that?

Look, the leadership of the Democratic Party is riddled with weak idiots. Just think of the past 20 years. Weak idiots when Pres. Obama was enabled to "turn the page" and not go after Cheney and the neocons for their handiwork around OIF. Weak idiots when Sen. Gillibrand was enabled to snipe Sen. Franken.

Time and again, we show up to knife fights and gun fights with our "dukes up", ready to engage like an old timey boxer. And time and again, we get our asses handed to us. Am I seriously the only person tiring of this?

The Republican Party doesn't need to be "on their game" to beat us. I guess we do most of the work for them!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like another burrowed right winger wrote a report to throw a bone.

Not burrowed. Hur was appointed by Trump. Garland is such a dummy for appointing people who are obviously bad faith actors. Notice that the Trump AGs didn’t appoint democratic Obama appointees as special counsels!

This is further outgrowth of the pathetic, weak "When they go low, we go high!" horseshit that led to Dick Cheney retaining his liberty, etc.

The Democratic Party leadership is just pathetically weak - it's embarrassing, actually. The incoming curb stomping from the Republicans is, unfortunately, well deserved. What a mess.

Your complaints are confusing. Hur is not charging him. He could. He isn’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How anyone isn’t troubled by this is crazy.

This just enforces what I’ve been bothered by for over a year now. I think Biden is selfish as hell for running again at 80+.

It’s absolutely ridiculous.

I swear, I still hope he decides to retire. It’s not too late—though he’s leaving us in a bind to quickly find someone willing and able to take over the reigns of a monumentally important presidential campaign.

If Joe (selfishly) decides to stay in the race, I’ll vote for him because I’m not an idiot. But I’ll be pissed.

I’m a moderate dem and a Black woman, and I am ready for the 70+ crew to step aside.

[NP]

Anonymous wrote:How anyone isn’t troubled by this is crazy.

Anonymous wrote:Biden totally and completely exonerated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did they include negative descriptions of Biden as a forgetful old man? . . . .

Um, maybe because Biden IS a forgetful old man who is clearly suffering from Alzheimer’s and is no longer fit for office?

He doesn't have Alzheimer's. That's an ignorant and insensitive thing to say. Early stage dementia similar to most people his age- yes, that's fair to say. He is not fit for office yet more fit for office than Trump at the same time.

No, even that’s no fair to say. This sounds like a slanted report by a right winger with an agenda.

I believe he has Alzheimer’s. The reason is just based on the one thing he couldn’t remember. He could not remember, even within a few years, when his son died. Now, as a lifelong politician the dates and names of various events and people he has interacted with professionally could get muddled. But I don’t think any person who clearly loves his children the way Biden clearly does would forget something like that unless they were in serious decline. It is just not something that a parent forgets.

You've clearly never spent time around someone Biden's age. His forgetfulness is perfectly normal for an 81 year old and this doesn't mean Alzheimer's.