“History repeats itself. That’s one of the things wrong with history.” —Clarence Darrow.
2024’s tasteless 1968 impression—if it had to imitate a year in American history, why would it choose that one?—continued yesterday with a Democratic President, beset by a divided party, campus protests and bad polls (okay, the galloping dementia angle is new) suddenly abandoned his reelection campaign just weeks before the convention that was prepared to make him the nominee by acclamation.
Here is the letter that was posted on social media yesterday afternoon:
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. July 21, 2024
My Fellow Americans,
Over the past three and a half years, we have made great progress as a Nation.
Today, America has the strongest economy in the world. We’ve made historic investments in rebuilding our Nation, in lowering prescription drug costs for seniors, and in expanding affordable health care to a record number of Americans. We’ve provided critically needed care to a million veterans exposed to toxic substances. Passed the first gun safety law in 30 years. Appointed the first African American woman to the Supreme Court. And passed the most significant climate legislation in the history of the world. America has never been better positioned to lead than we are today.
I know none of this could have been done without you, the American people. Together, we overcame a once in a century pandemic and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We’ve protected and preserved our Democracy. And we’ve revitalized and strengthened our alliances around the world.
It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.
I will speak to the Nation later this week in more detail about my decision.
For now, let me express my deepest gratitude to all those who have worked so hard to see me reelected. I want to thank Vice President Kamala Harris for being an extraordinary partner in all this work. And let me express my heartfelt appreciation to the American people for the faith and trust you have placed in me.
I believe today what I always have: that there is nothing America can’t do – when we do it together. We just have to remember we are the United States of America.
And here is Biden’s “oops, I almost forgot!” statement endorsing Kamala Harris:
“My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.”
Ethics Observations:
1. A President suddenly pulling out of a campaign this late is major news, and clearly mandated a personal, televised announcement. Heck, why not just put it up on Twitter/”X”? It looked to me like someone wanted to make Joe’s ouster official quickly so he–or Jill— couldn’t change what is left of his mind. That was not a Biden-drafted announcement; if fact, it read like it was written by ChatGPT. Who starts off an announcement like that by talking about prescription drug prices? (At least the statement didn’t tell us again about how great it was to add Sweden and Finland to NATO.) This was more evidence that Biden isn’t running the country, and we don’t know who is.
2. Biden may have authored the second message: only a demented President would say something as damning as ‘nominating Kamala Harris is “the best decision I’ve made.”‘ Wow. Gee, Joe, what was your worst decision? That cynical, reckless, DEI selection has trapped the Democrats in a “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” dilemma. Well, the party deserves it. But the country doesn’t.
3. Why would anyone ever believe anything a Democratic official says ever again? Biden’s staff was insisting the day before that the President was resolute, adamant, fit, and “in it to win it.”
Did you know Donald Trump lies all the time? If someone in either party says something that isn’t a lie, will someone let me know?
4. Biden’s withdrawal letter was also full of lies and deceit. LBJ didn’t waste the nation’s time and insult its intelligence with canned puffery like “we overcame a pandemic.” Will Glenn Kessler fact-check that? Of course not. Biden’s a Democrat.
5. Is this the process now? If a a party’s acknowledged candidate for President does badly in a Presidential debate, then his party just calls for a mulligan and gets to run a new candidate and schedule a new debate? As I said in a comment thread last night, the Republicans and Trump should refuse to participate in any debates with Harris or whoever the Democrats choose to replace Biden.
Has anyone else called this an unethical “debate and switch” tactic yet?
6. The headline on a New York Times essay today is “With Biden Out, Vice President Kamala Harris Has a Chance to Make History Again.” When did the idea that “making history” in a job is more important than things like “being qualified for it” and “being able to do it well” begin to rot American minds?
7. Beginning a long series of exclamations on “X,” Jonathan Turley wrote, “The decision of Joe Biden to withdraw from his reelection bid raises the obvious question of how he can continue as president if he is incapable of running for that office. The Democratic Party seems to have created its own 25th Amendment, but ….there remains the “other” 25th Amendment. This is a type of 25th-lite option where you lack capacity to run but not to serve for an office…”
An amazing number of Democrats and progressives seem perfectly happy to have the nation run by faceless bureaucrats, ideologues, and an American politburo. Democracy!
BOY, does this corrupt, hypocritical party deserve to lose in a landslide….
8. Speaking of landslides, is this really a strategic time for Democrats to pander to its far left, flip to a 1972 impression and run the most radically leftist Presidential candidate in its history, more so even than George McGovern? When California has jumped the rationality shark as never before, is the public lucky enough to live somewhere else really clamoring for a California progressive?
9. And speaking of the party that says it is fighting for democracy, if the Kamala debacle holds, it means that the votes of 16 million Americans who voted for Joe Biden in the primaries (with essentially no alternatives, as the Party of Democracy gave them none) have just been rendered null and void, and an unpopular and unimpressive official who was roundly rejected when she offered herself to America as a Presidential candidate has been anointed by a demented President and Puppeteers Unknown. That’s “democracy” as this party practices it, and they still keep saying that Donald Trump is the real threat to democracy. Wait, I hear Inigo calling…
[Footnote: Last night I heard some anonymous Democratic Party flack—it might have even been a journalist—protest that that voters really did vote for Kamala because she was on those primary ballots as Joe’s running mate. Right: they didn’t vote for her to be President, you asshole. I don’t think I’ve ever lived through a three week period, beginning with Biden’s gibberish attack in the debate, where so many people have lied so flagrantly and shamelessly, or resorted to “its isn’t what it is” as a rationalization so often.]
10. With this kind of definition of “democracy”—that is, “if the Democratic Party decides to do it, it’s democracy!”—why not this? Some aspiring totalitarians want Kamala to pick Barack Obama as her VP. There is considerable debate among scholars over whether the 22nd amendment allows that, and the mean old Supreme Court keeps foiling the party’s efforts to ignore that annoying Constitution thingy, but with this gang, you never know what they’ll try.
11. Essentially, it looks like the people who really forced Joe out were wealthy progressive donors. Yes, billionaires decided that they didn’t want Biden as President any more, so that was that. At the risk of repeating myself: “Democracy!”
The word is, in truth, “Oligarchy.”
12. Classy as always, Trump wrote, “Crooked Joe Biden was not fit to run for President, and is certainly not fit to serve – And never was!” True, but still: the ethical thing to do would have been to call Joe, say something nice and conciliatory, be magnanimous, and…Oh, why do I even bother? Trump doesn’t do ethics. If someone who is down doesn’t get up quickly enough, he’ll kick him. This is one reason why Trump Derangement is harder to eradicate than the Wuhan virus.
How the United States ended up with this creep as its best hope to resist the intensifying assault on the American experiment in liberty, personal autonomy and responsibility, meritocracy, capitalism and basic individual rights is an enduring mystery to me.
Ethics Alarms 
Your guess is as good as mine.
History, Providence, the Hand of God, whatever you want to call it gave us prickly George Washington, melancholy Abe Lincoln and power-hungry FDR. It also gave us ineffective Franklin Pierce, polarizing Andrew Johnson and blink-and-you-miss-him Benjamin Harrison (breaks my Hoosier heart). I believe that God can and does use whomever He wishes – sometimes the least likely person – to work His will. His will may or may not be something we like. After all, the Bible essentially demonstrates that people get the leaders they deserve, for better or for worse.
You asked a few years ago – and I think it’s relevant today, too – “Does it seem like something bigger is going on here?”
Most certainly, yes.
A M, I agree completely. Well written.
I wonder why the Democratic leadership’s removal letter didn’t include President Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan as one of his accomplishments…that must have slipped their minds.
Jack, #11 is spot on. I would LOVE to see how donations to the Democratic Party have trended over the last five months. I bet there’s a sizeable cliff in that chart somewhere around that first debate. President Biden didn’t choose to leave…the Biden family was told he was done.
A friend of mine noted that the release did not have the President’s Seal at the top and wondered if there was anything to that. I have no idea…maybe the Seal isn’t required on those types of things. I also noticed that lack of a “VP Harris endorsement” in the initial release.
VP Harris polled at around 5% in her home state during the 2020 campaign. I believe she was the first candidate to drop, having been verbally eviscerated in a debate by some then-unknown Congresswoman from Hawaii. She’s been a total blathering fool in the ensuing four years…seriously, has she said or repeated or telepromptered ANYTHING coherent, anything that didn’t require ranch dressing to be consumed?
Does the Democratic Party really intend to – for the second time in less than four years – put someone totally incompetent up as the “face of the party”?!? To be fair, my side has President Trump – who has his own issues – but at least he can complete a lucid thought, speaks in complete sentences, and doesn’t require an interpreter when speaking to people in his native tongue. At LEAST there’s that.
As for President Obama as VP…aren’t three terms as President enough?!?
Humans deserve to deserve better. You can punish a child for hitting someone, but if you don’t teach them how to resolve conflicts ethically, they will either continue to hit people or be completely dependent on others to solve their problems. If everyone is like that, the problems don’t get solved and we end up with half of the humans hitting each other and the other half wringing their hands and praying for someone else to do something.
Humans have to take the initiative to learn systematic approaches to ethical principles, because a series of bad leaders aren’t going to teach them anything about how to build and maintain an ethical society.
concerning #12
What are the chances that if there had been significant impact of the projectile which Trump avoided by a quarter inch that his behavior would have been altered like that of Phineas Gage but in reverse making him nicer?
I have a theory that Biden’s resignation was planned for this Sunday weeks ahead of time, to coincide with a certain event that made Biden’s whole purpose of running for president (to stop Trump) no longer necessary. No, I’m not prone to conspiracy theories, why?
I am concerned about whether they can keep Joe oriented.
Is he going to slip up in the next few days, weeks, months and ask the people to elect him to a second term?
Vegas have odds on that?
-Jut
Frank Biden stated that he is glad to get his brother back for whatever time he has left. That sounds like a ringing endorsement for the person who is supposed to be president for the next 6 months. Some people are wondering if Biden died. Biden’s campaign chair was on TV Sunday morning claiming that there was no truth to the rumors and that he was in it to win it. Hours later, Biden resigns from the campaign, Harris is later endorsed, the paperwork is filed, and the money has been transferred.
I did see a ‘Debate and Switch’ video last night on Youtube. I can’t find it now because Google doesn’t let you find what you want.
I think they had no choice. Trump gave a 30 minute speech 3 times at the RNC (he just repeated everything 3 times). At the time, I thought it was stupid, but strategic. The Democrats are like children and if Trump speaks for 90 minutes, they will try to get Biden to speak for 90 minutes. Then Biden was supposed to speak at Las Vegas. I think Joe left the building. I think he is is gone and isn’t coming back. They concocted this Covid story to get him out of town and see if they could bring him back. Notice you haven’s seen him since. He didn’t make an announcement because he can’t.
The donors are getting nervous that there won’t be a payback on their investment. To calm them Kamala Harris spoke to them on Zoom. Biden should have addressed them to reassure them that he was fine, but Kamala came onto the meeting 20 minutes late (she left the 300 biggest donors waiting for 20 minutes), lectured them that Biden was fine, stop questioning his fitness, get in line and follow orders, then she hung up on them. I think Biden was supposed to address them, but they couldn’t make him able to do it, so Harris was used.
I think they really thought they could limp him through November and they could somehow manufacture enough votes to win.
Does Joe know he isn’t running anymore? I doubt they will let him talk to the press. Someone might ask him why he dropped out of the race and he could answer”Who said I dropped out. I am in it to the end you lying dog-faced pony solidier!”.
12. The reason we are short on leaders is the legacy of the baby boom. Nobody in our generation wanted to go into politics. You have to work nights and weekends and kiss babies and rich people’s asses. We all got MBAs (a new invention) or went to law school or medical school. Who wanted to knock on doors or run for the school board or work in a campaign when you could make more than a decent living doing something else. Which left politics to the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, the Bush boys, John Kerry, Joe Biden and his entire family, Willie Brown, and so forth. Given the pathetic nature of these people, an outsider was able to win the biggest prize in politics. The baby boomers ran the politics industrial complex into the ground and left the public looking for something different. And boy did they ever get it.
I would disagree with this analysis. The Baby Boomers held on to power for a long time. They were more numerous than Gen X, so didn’t pass the torch. By the time they were fading out of the picture, the Gen X people were considered too old and were passed over to the Millennials, who were more numerous and demanding power without competence (think AOC). Also, about the time Gen X should have been taking on leadership roles, diversity became our strength and competence became a dirty word. The meritocracy was seen as racist, sexist, and homophobic. So, the Gen X leaders, who spent their lives becoming competent, were now seen as a problem and younger ‘diverse’ people were selected.
In other words, we don’t have competent leaders because competency is no longer a selection criteria, diversity is.
Michael, I don’t think baby boomers holding onto power too long created a leadership void, I’m saying the boomers were themselves THE void. And to your point, competent, ethical leaders would have brought along the next generation of leaders. Who did the Clintons bring along? Monica Lewinsky and Huma Abedin. Servants, not the next generation of leaders.
Our leadership criteria was changed. Our culture (media and education) indoctrinated the culture to believe the leadership criteria of the past was wrong. Today’s leaders are judged by the color of their skin, their genitals, and their sexual preferences.
“How the United States ended up with this creep as its best hope to resist the intensifying assault on the American experiment in liberty, personal autonomy and responsibility, meritocracy, capitalism and basic individual rights is an enduring mystery to me.”
He was promoted by the Clinton campaign and the DNC even before he officially announced as a candidate. $2 billion in free advertising before the primaries started.
https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
If histories are ever written again, we’ll find that the Clintons goaded Trump into running for several years.
Yet that still doesn’t explain why the normal leadership nurturing culture in the US and the political ladder couldn’t create a better leader at this important juncture in history. We have no fair, respectful, thoughtful, courageous champions of core American values, traditions and aspirations who aren’t total assholes? Why not?
The Federal government is now run by professional politicians.
It was set up for the Senators to be the experienced statesman, with the Representatives being representatives of the people.
We are now entrenched by the political class. We needed an outsider to disrupt that mold. Perot could have done that, but he backed out for some reason. Trump has the right type of backbone, stubbornness, arrogance, popular appeal, and populist appeal. And, he is not afraid; he is not afraid to be undiplomatic. He can speak the way that the political class will not.
-Jut
Agreed. He truly speaks truth to power. (How’s that for irony? He’s taken a lefty phrase and thrown in right back in their collective face.) For example, he has nicknames for everyone, but what about calling Joe Biden “Crooked Joe Biden” is inaccurate? Professional politicians don’t say anything. Come to think of it, an argument could be made that Kamala Harris’s “word salads” are simply the culmination, the logical conclusion, of proper political speech: she says absolutely nothing.
Exactly. Trump is like chemotherapy for cancer. To rid yourself of cancer you must endure some very serious side effects.
That elusive candidate who is ethical, smart, statesmanlike or some other adjective we associate with past great presidents will never emerge because the collective power of the unethical, power seeking hoard will chew him or her up and spit them out in a heartbeat.
Trump is merely our Godzilla to defend us from Rodan an Mothra.
Most cancer treatments are a game of chicken. You hope it kills the cancer before it kills you. An apt analogy.
Read this whole thread:
https://x.com/classiclibera12/status/1815192009625215368?s=46&t=hYBRdyKc75ixaD6bBbzJZw
I am not sure I understand the thread. Does this guy think the unelected bureaucracy is composed of fascist MAGA Trump supporters? Is his main problem that he suddenly realized that the Democratic Party handpicks their candidates and only allows an appearance of choice for the voters? I thought that is what made the Democratic Party superior? I don’t know anyone who voted for Joe Biden to be president. They voted for the Democratic Party experts in the government to be president.
This might be drifting a bit from ethics – though I could see a connection – but I’d love to read some thoughts on the “President Obama as VP” angle. Would President Obama’s ego stand down so that he could be considered #2 on the ticket? Would VP Harris want him on the ticket, knowing that on nearly every level he would completely overshadow her? He would second-guess every decision, correct everything he considers wrong, and effectively drive the conversation/agenda/direction of her Administration. Her cabinet, the Dems in the House and Senate, and every Dem politician in D.C. would look to him for answers rather than Harris. He would again be the President, except in a much more overt manner than when he was running the Biden Administration.
I would think that would gall her to no end. I think she has to make it a stipulation of her campaign that President Obama is NOT on the ticket.
Even from the perspective of a Democrat voter, I would think that Barack Obama as VP would be highly unethical in terms of preventing a President Harris from standing on her own and pushing an agenda.
Anyone have an opinion?
She’d go for it in a New York minute. It would give her a chance at being elected. Currently, she has no chance. As soon as she debates, the Dems will want to change her out. If Obama were on the ticket, all she’d have to do is smile and keep her mouth shut.
Reality check: I can’t see Obama coming out of his cushy retirement. Too much work.
20th amendment to the constitution (remember that musty old document?) reads in part:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president, so he is not eligible to be vice president.
And, in a supreme irony, it is the President of the Senate who counts electoral votes after they are sent to Congress. Guess who the president of the Senate happens to be at the moment?
Would it be an insurrection is Harris declined to certify votes for Obama as vice president? Or simply performing her duty?
Aside from all that, I think it’s terrible idea. Let’s suppose Obama is somehow installed as vice president. Then Harris somehow dies. Now we have Mike Johnson as president. Or Hakeem Jeffries.
Suppose the speaker dies in the same even as Harris. Then, we have Chuck Grassley becoming president. He was born in 1933.
Need I say more?
Well, read the counter argument in the article I linked to. I agree with your interpretation of the 20th, but, as usual, there are “experts: who claim otherwise.
Yes, it’s the 12th and not the 20th. The web page I was reading confused me a bit.
And yes, I did see the language in the 22nd amendment. But the clear intent behind that amendment was to keep a person from serving more than two terms as president. And we do have Supreme Court justices who will look at the clear intent of the framers of that amendment — as Joel said, I’m sure there was plenty of debate in Congress as to what they meant by it.
As well, I think when you read through the Constitution there is an equivalence between the president and vice president. Not that they are the same office or have the same powers, but that they are the ‘heir and a spare’ to use the royal terminology. I.e. the spare has to be eligible to hold the office in order to be elected, so being elected as vice president is constitutionally equivalent to being elect as president.
One thing to consider when weighing that argument is how the Founders originally set up presidential elections. It was the top two vote getters who were to be president and vice president, so both men being elected had to have all the qualifications.
—————-
I will offer a counterpoint, since we’ve gone down this rabbit hole. I think there would be a better argument that it would be constitutional for Barack Obama to be appointed vice president, since he wouldn’t be being elected. Of course, that would only be something in the best interests of the country and not a device for purely partisan advantage, so it’s not going to come up.
————-
Such arguments as these (running Obama for VP) are the very essence of desperation, it seems to me. One of the last gasps of a party who doesn’t think democracy should depend on the will of the voters.
I couldn’t find that text about ineligibility in the 20th Amendment, but it is in the 12th…and not in the section that Section 3 of the 20th superceded. So yes, I think you are correct.
I disagree. (Not that it’s in the 12th and not in the 20th. That part is correct.) But I disagree that that would prevent Obama from being Vice President. The 22nd makes him ineligible to be elected President. It says nothing about him being ineligible to become President by some other means.
To be clear, I’m not a fan of Obama, and I think a Harris administration would be on par with having Chance the Gardener as President, except that Harris is evil and ignorant rather than pure and naive. So the thought that Harris might pick Obama as a running mate and that might help her win worries me.
But I don’t see how it’s unconstitutional.
But isn’t Barack Obama constitutionally ineligible to be the President? He’s been elected twice, which means he can’t be President again.
If he had ascended to the Presidency in the second half of a previous President’s term (due to death, resignation, etc.), then he would be eligible to be elected for up to two terms (the “two years plus two terms” thing). But that’s not the case with President Obama. He served two terms as an elected President, which means he’s no longer eligible to be President. Therefore, by the text of the 12th Amendment, he’s not eligible to be the Vice President, either.
“But isn’t Barack Obama constitutionally ineligible to be the President? He’s been elected twice, which means he can’t be President again.”
The text of the 22nd Ammendment reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.“
I’m no Supreme Court Justice, but, as I said, by my reading it says he’s ineligible to be elected again. It says nothing about him becoming President by any other means. Being President and being elected President are two different things.
(Again, to be clear, I’m not advocating for it and I hope it doesn’t happen. I just fail to see how it’s unconstitutional.)
Textually, you have a good argument, but there is that pesky section that says:
…no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.“
What this implies, but does not explicitly say, is that the intent of the amendment was to eliminate anyone from serving more than two terms by any means.
As we can see, even amendments may not be written well enough to be considered in isolation, especially one from a fairly modern era. There should be plenty of congressional debate around this amendment to clarify the status of electing a person ineligible to be elected president as vice president.
Technically, Article II section V doesn’t forbid a naturalized person from being elected Vice President:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Of course, such a person would not be eligible to serve as president in the event the office became vacant, so the qualifications for president are implied and assumed. My presumption is that the 22nd amendment had the same intent.
Hmmm…so someone could argue that President Obama is eligible to serve out the final two years of Harris’ Presidency, but could not subsequently run again.
I guess SCOTUS would have to render on that technicality. My (non-lawyer) civics education was that once a President was elected twice, he was ineligible. But my education didn’t account for a totalitarian Left desperate to prop up a miserable candidate appointed by the party rather than the will of its constituents.
I appreciate your insights on this.
How about someone who had been elected President twice then decided he wanted to be elected to the House of representatives where due to being held in high esteem he becomes Speaker. Then something happens to both the President and Vice President. He would then be President.
I was surprised that Trump didn’t try that. It was suggested that he run for the House, and in the GOP chaos there, he probably could have been elected Speaker. As Speaker, he could have and would have made Biden’s life miserable. I have always wondered why no ex-President has tried that. Only two have gone on to Congress, and only one, JQ Adams, stayed there very long.
And if I recall, JQ Adams died in Congress – right there, in the building – of a massive stroke.
Replying to Joel.
Almost — he suffered a stroke on the floor of the House and died two days later.
But even more interesting (to me) is that he sponsored an emancipation amendment to the constitution in 1839.
However, there was apparently a gag rule in Congress at the time, imposed by Southerners, that forbade any mention of slavery at all. Adams then waged a fight of at least 5 years to repeal the rule, finally prevailing in 1844.
I am sure he got his distaste for slavery from his father and mother, and like his father could be ‘obnoxious and disliked’.
A complex man.
Errol, I would guess the last sentence of the 12th Amendment would come into play. In that case, the SOTH is ineligible to be President, so order of succession would default to the next in succession, same way as it would if the SOTH was 30 years old.
I’m more than a little surprised at the idea that “it’s too late!” All I can say is “better late than never.” The country is at least beginning to see a light at the end of the tunnel of having a demented sock puppet chief executive and a government run by courtiers. Whatever can’t continue has to end. Our national nightmare of “Weekend at Bernie’s” combined with “King Lear” is coming to an end. I say, Hooray.
I think Hillary Clinton and her enablers are responsible for this stupid “historic this and historic that” trend. Her obsession with becoming the first female president has polluted the culture.
Our beloved Prez took one for the team but has probably become rather sickly from continually overdosing on all the meds intended to make him a walking talking manageable mannequin. The dem honchos have solved 50% of their problem (no small thing) but there still remains the other half – the insufferable cackler.
Don’t worry folks, there’s still time to solve this problem along with the necessary plausible deniability. The Clintonistas always figured out a way and I’m sure they’d be happy to help, for a small fee.
It’s all so unethical…🤠
Given Democrats’ fondness for wearing masks, I thought it was odd that I didn’t see anyone wearing masks in the videos of Biden returning to Rehoboth Beach, nor did it seem anyone was trying to stay at least six feet away from Biden. It prompts me to wonder if COVID infection is the true diagnosis.
Dementia is the new covid.
Oh, and as usual the Babylon Bee is all over this. Here’s a prime example:
https://babylonbee.com/news/jill-biden-drops-out-of-presidential-race
Per #7
If he’s too feeble to be prosecuted, too feeble to debate coherently, too feeble to finish his campaign, and too feeble to hold office in a few more months, how does it serve the US for him to be president right now? The office is not some retirement gift for dementia patients.