One House Democrat said he spoke for others in the wake of the president’s stunningly feeble debate performance on Thursday: “The movement to convince Biden to not run is real.”
The House member, an outspoken defender of the president, said that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer should consider “a combined effort” to nudge President Joe Biden out of the race.
Crestfallen by the president’s weak voice, pallid appearance and meandering answers, numerous Democratic officials said Biden’s bet on an early debate to rebut unceasing questions about his age had not only backfired but done damage that may prove irreversible. The president had, in the first 30 minutes of the debate, fully affirmed doubts about his fitness.
A second House Democrat said “reflection is needed” from Biden about the way ahead and indicated the private text threads among lawmakers were even more dire, with some saying outright that the president needed to drop out of the race.
Phew, I ate a beyond burger earlier and I’m still cogent and coherent. Guess it’s the corn syrup, just like my dad warned me.
I don’t believe this conspiracy theory (or not believe it), I am just saying it exists. But yes, without the corn syrup, I would probably be a better and sexier person.
Then why parrot chafe into the conversation at all?
He pretty clearly stated that it was the conspiracy nuts in his first comment.
Poor fella. Read my question again, but this time try to think about it.
It’s adorable when someone who doesn’t understand the concept of discussing an idea’s existence tries to be condescending.
For example, I can say “there are people who think the earth is flat” while not endorsing the idea of a flat earth.
Cute and useless, as is customary for ya.
People are looking for clarity about all this, I used the word chafe on purpose.
Think about it.
I am adding it for posterity in case it does happen. I don’t believe or disbelieve this, but I have seem “conspiracy theories” proven true later and sometimes it’s like people forget the “crazy” people mentioned the truth months or years prior. I want this here so that if proven true, the word “misinformation” will start to be viewed skeptically as the Ministry of Truth word that it is, divorced from science and discourse.
Adding distracting points into the public discourse when people are seeking clarity doesn’t seem like a noble goal.
What do you get out of it at the end, the ability to say “told you so”?
What if Kamala does step in due to the very real odds of a medical issue happening, then shall we start believing conspiracy theorists on other points?
My point remains the same, you’re occluding understanding of the situation, both currently and in the future, and I don’t like that.
Others are occluding discourse by banning discussion as misinformation to control all narratives, then acting as though conspiracy theorists weren’t correct. This narrative control is from an elite whose lies are vast enough to occlude the sun.
Overly dramatic verbiage aside, I’m not seeing any discussion here, of utility anyway.
Good day.