'We Can't Let A Convicted Felon In The White House,' Biden Tells Hunter
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON, D.C. — As the race for the presidency intensified, an administration insider disclosed that President Biden warned his son, Hunter, that allowing a convicted felon to be in the White House would be a disgrace and disastrous for the country.
The president's son, currently awaiting sentencing for a felony conviction, reportedly vowed to help his father in whatever way he could to prevent a convicted felon from entering through the doors of the executive mansion.
"We can't let a convicted felon in the White House," the president was overheard telling his convicted felon son. "The idea… that anyone could allow a convicted felon to sit in on some of the most important meetings that determine the course of action for our nation is… it's… there's now way… there isn't any way to… we can't let… we've got to… beat Medicare. Just like we did before."
The inside source reported that Hunter Biden sat by stoically, nodding in agreement with his father, unsure which convicted felon the elder Biden was talking about. "Sure, dad. Just remember -- you CAN'T. DROP. OUT," said Hunter emphatically. "The felony thing is just -- too important. To both of us."
At publishing time, White House sources said President Biden was committed to working closely with Hunter to come up with a solid strategy to make sure a convicted felon does not take on a key role in deciding America's future.
Tags
Who is online
407 visitors
Per the New York Times, hunter , along with Jill, are controlling access to Joe Biden.
Malaria would control access to Donny but she hates him.
Yes, I hear she's gonna divorce him after he wins the election....
“…she's gonna divorce him…”
No fault?
I can't resist this one......
So your telling me i have a chance......
I know the mental picture that just popped into your mind , and it was intended.
I'm not sure, didn't read the article. If you want to look it up I believe it was on Raw Story or maybe it was The Intelligencer?...
Would it matter?
Lol. Jill’s exploiting her husband’s illness to wield power and you think it has something to do with love? Joes worst enemy would probably treat him with more compassion than the way Jill does.
if anyone in his family actually cared for him they would have talked him into retiring years ago. Let him sit on the beach and talk to those those grandkids he acknowledges. Now they are just running their meal ticket into the ground and getting what they can before fading into obscurity.
Somebody has to help Joe hide.
It's sad that Donald Trump is literally the best the GOP has to offer.
It's also sad that an addled crusty old "white guy" career politician is the best the Dems can come up with...
I have been catching myself using Jackie Gleasons line as Sheriff Buford T Justice from the first smokey and the bandit, what in the world is this country coming to. Thinking of both choices.
Then I remember, I am now older than he was when he said that line in the movie in 1977.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
[✘]
I would much rather have someone that knows what they are doing than that dirty cunt trump the pedophile.
"knows what they are doing".
That leaves Biden out then.
No doubt then, that you're excited about the possibility of "the first black woman to serve with a black president" being reelected.....
And the GOP had a primary; they had a graceful way to pick a decent human being as their nominee and they totally blew it. The Ds should have picked someone other than Biden too, but displacing an incumbent who has decided to run for reelection is difficult.
When were those primaries?...
What are you talking about?
No one knows.
Obviously they have known about Joes problems for awhile but decided to continue on with the big lie anyway.
It's too h-a-r-d seems like a very poor excuse for Democrats.
Of course they have, all the while crying about the other party.... fucking ridiculous
It is a well established fact that a party will defer to the wishes of the incumbent regarding his reelection.
That is nothing but a lame excuse. It does not have to be done. There has never been an incumbent as incapacitated as joe.
If they're willing to do that when the incumbent has a hard time articulating words then they might be putting party over country.....
Just saying...
Exactly.
Trump usually articulates words (but not always) but the issue is what he is articulating.
Yeah, both guys produce some wonderful word salads.
Right, and that makes it hard, right, like I just said!
Except all the the times the party has not deferred
David Axelrod:
The president is rightfully proud of his record.
But he is dangerously out-of-touch with the concerns people have about his capacitiies moving forward and his standing in this race.
Four years ago at this time, he was 10 points ahead of Trump.
Today, he is six points behind.
Well, no, there hasn't been.
But some can not look at Biden for himself and his actions.
The excuse will be used by Dems that they are saving democracy!
Mmmmm, which begs the question, how are they saving democracy by putting it in the hands of someone so incapable?
You just illustrated your failure to understand history and the mechanics of a political party.
Actually nothing of the sort but feel free to promote a false narrative along with expected false accusations. .
I have no earthly idea, but they seem to think someone with Biden's obvious deficits is good for the country.
Go figure, huh?
You have to go back to 1884 to find your most recent example of this. Seems to me that 140 years of deferral qualifies as a clear historical trend.
When, in history has there been something equivalent to this?
I just want to point out your obvious bias. I know it wont help, but it is on the record.
I asked you last week to show us some examples of you attacking Donald trump but never heard back. Maybe you are still looking.
and I asked you to point to your Biden criticisms.
look, no point in ME bagging on Trump, we seem to have people who have adopted doing that as a career!
but what's funny is only one of us won't be voting for a dumbass idiot!
Biden announced his bid for reelection in April, 2023. At that time the D party did not have anything close to the failed debate performance. He was old, slow, and typical Biden. To me that is a great reason to find someone else, but party operatives think differently.
The reason Biden became the nominee was because he was the incumbent, he wanted reelection, and the argument for not deferring to the incumbent was not nearly as strong as it is now.
Remember that we are talking about the respective parties and how they came to have their current nominees. We are not talking about what the D party might do NOW. You get that, right?
The incumbent in a party has substantial momentum. Bucking that momentum requires extraordinary conditions. Party members will not buck the head of their party unless they have very good reasons (and substantial support). The reasons should be obvious to you.
The GOP, in contrast to the Ds, had no incumbent. They had a healthy primary with several good candidates. The GOP bypassed these younger, better human beings in favor of Trump. The GOP had a perfect, graceful, normal means to pick a good nominee and they totally blew it.
“how are they saving democracy,,,,”
well first off, get a foreigner to put together a fake and damning dossier on your political opponent.
then allow the fbi to spy on that political opponent.
then use that fake dossier to impeach a duly elected president.
then scream about the sanctity and security of our elections while calling anyone who is in favor of voter id a racist.
try to put your political opponent in prison.
use the fbi and cia to discredit credible info that shines a bad light on your guy.
And finally, limit the choices the people have to vote for, on both sides of the aisle.
i’m sure i missed some of their “saving democracy” tactics but this list should go a long way towards “saving democracy”.
Sure...
You get that what we're talking about is what the D party isn't doing NOW, right?
Pretty good summation!
If they can fool themselves into pretending they are saving democracy, then they can justify their vote for an incompetent.
A clear historical trend doesn't mean it can't be done if the need arises. The need arose and the dems took the easy way out.
That would be the twelfth of never
.
Democrats forced Wilson out in 20.
Democrats forced LBJ out in 68
Republicans made a push at ford in 76.
Democrats made a push at Carter in 80.
Republicans made a push at Bush in 92
Weak incumbents gets challenged within the Party. Strong ones typically don't.
Since 68 its about 50/50 whether a significant faction of a Party tries to remove a sitting President. Their parties certainly didn't defer to LBJ, Ford, Carter or Bush. They had to fight to survive.
he had two terms
So you have no examples of you criticizing Trump the way you do Biden.
he had two terms
He, delusional like Biden, wanted a third despite being in terrible health and essentially being a puppet of his wife. The Party stood up to Wilson.
You can also add Truman in '52 to that list.
Thank goodness, wait, wasn't that before the 22nd amendment?...
That is NOT what we were discussing.
If you want to discuss what the D party is not doing NOW then opine on one of my comments where I deal with that, not on my comments which deal with the history of how Biden and Trump become the presumptive nominees of 2024.
There was a long standing tradition of only two terms, and Wilson was never a factor and simply hoped he could get traction in a deadlocked convention. Not the same scenario as Biden.
I do, but won't be looking them up FOR you.
If you are all that interested, feel free to click my name and READ all my comments.
wtf difference does it make if I criticize Trump or not when I am not voting for him and others do a magnificent job of it almost daily?
always remember that only one of us is going to vote for an incompetent dumbass, and it won't be me!
No they did not. He was unable to campaign due to his stroke and gave the Ds no choice but to nominate someone else. This was an incumbent who was legitimately incapacitated in his second term and had no hope of running for a third term and did NOT actively seek a third term.
No they did not, he decided not to run due his poor ratings due to the Vietnam war and due to his poor health.
He ran.
He ran.
He ran.
Seriously, 'made a push'? You actually wrote that as part of an argument that the parties denied the nomination to the incumbent?
The last example of a party pushing out an incumbent was 1884 when Chester Arthur announced his intention to run but was denied the nomination by his party.
And beyond that, the point is that it is a historical fact that an incumbent's desire to run for reelection is powerful. The parties typically defer to their leader. Would be challengers face substantial political damage if they try to buck the machine.
Mmm, it's one of the things I was discussing. What is that? Do I need to bring discussion to specific threads for a reason?
But remember these are extraordinary times and Democrats did nothing but go for Joe.
And now they can live with that poor decision.
Again, Wilson wanted a third term. Your own post makes that clear.
That he had zero shot at it is not the point. The party did not "defer" to his wishes as an incumbent to renominate him.
. Not the same scenario as Biden.
The similarity is that their wives took over, controlled access to the President and pushed for another term despite the obvious health issues of the President.
everyone knows what you are about here
Thread 3.2 was created by me with this comment:
What do you think I am writing about here? Hint: the GOP primary was to pick Trump and the picking of Biden was the lack of a challenge to his intentions.
Obviously, right, I was NOT writing about what the Ds should do now.
If that were even remotely true, I would be getting a whole lot of thoughtful commentary instead of drivel.
I am sure everyone is thankful for you pointing out the blatantly obvious.
I am not convinced they will stick with Biden. I suspect they will, but trying to predict the future is typically a fool's errand.
Probably as appreciative as when others do it, but that doesn't concern me.
Maybe you'll be convinced after the convention.
He wanted a third term. The party did not defer to him. You falsely claimed the Party always defers to incumbents.
t, he decided not to run due his poor ratings due to the Vietnam war and due to his poor health.
Lol. Of course LBJ wanted another term. He ran in New Hampshire but after barely winning (again, party did not defer but challenged him) and RFK's entry (again, no deferral) he backed out because it was clear he couldn't win the nomination. If the field had been clear, if the Party had "deferred" to him, LBJ would absolutely have been the nominee in 68. That's a fact.
He ran.\
No shit. Words have meaning. Facts exist. You claimed that "parties will defer to incumbents" and that doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Reagan came within an inch of winning the '76 nomination. Ford and Carter had to fight for their political lives to win re- nomination as incumbents. The idea that their parties "deferred" to either of them as incumbents is pure gaslighting.
actually wrote that as part of an argument that the parties denied the nomination to the incumbent?\
Such a dishonest strawman. Your claim was that the party defers to incumbents. The Parties don't, historically, typically defer to weak ones.
Okay, I was. What they should do and what they haven't done. If you don't have a response that's fine.
Another pointless statement of the obvious. Clearly, Texan, if the D convention formally nominates (sticks with) Biden that would be a definitive fact.
Until then, a lot can happen.
Another intentionally disruptive question. Predicting the future deals with determining which of many options will occur in the future. Such as predicting that NVIDIA will continue to dominate the processor market for AI and will double in value in 12-18 months. While this seems likely, there are many factors that could disrupt this.
But there are much more obvious predictions. For example, it is not a fool's errand to predict that rain will fall over the next few months or that the business cycle will continue. Similarly, it is not even much of a prediction to listen to what Trump is saying and 'predict' that he, if elected, will use the powers of his office for his own personal needs rather than for the good of the nation if there is any conflict.
well, i think that is stretching the realities of 1920 quite a bit, but whatever
I have weighed in considerably on what I think they should do. And, importantly, on how they are in uncharted waters.
So if you are confused about my position ask a specific question.
Well, if it happens, I sure hope you will then be convinced.
Predictions come and go.
You were the one saying predicting the future is a fool's errand, not me.
And pretty clearly, I wasn't talking about stocks and business cycles. so why drag that into it?
I have, across several threads... I appreciate your responses.
He did not actively seek a third term. There was no formal denial. You are wrong.
Another lie. I did not state that this ALWAYS happens. I described the factual trend that parties defer to their incumbents. Plus, I stated that in 1884 they did not defer.
If someone writes: politicians lie, do you think that means ALL politicians ALWAYS lie?
If someone writes that political parties defer to their incumbent, how can you reasonably take that to mean that ALL members of a political party ALWAYS defer to their incumbent? Since when do statements implicitly gain universal quantification by default? Especially when I gave you 1884 as the last case where a formal bid by an incumbent was denied by their party which shows that it is wrong to presume ALL and ALWAYS quantifications.
In short, your intentional misreads are ridiculous.
He did not run. Do you understand what that means? It means that he did not formally announce running for reelection. Indeed, he formally announced that he would NOT run for reelection.
And you are (as usual) trying your best to split hairs in the hope (apparently) that you find some little sliver.
History shows that to be true. And the last weak one who actually tried to run and was denied by his party was Chester Arthur. This is history. You are wrong.
You are bending over backwards to try to pick holes in a general trend while ignoring the point I made.
So I will remind you (this thread) the point I made.
My point is that the D party naturally deferred to Biden's formal bid for reelection. They do this because the incumbent is the leader of the party and it is very difficult for someone to challenge a determined incumbent without compromising their political careers.
The incumbent has very strong momentum and history bears that out (for 140 years now).
Bucking the incumbent is tough so the Ds had a much more difficult challenge to sidestep Biden than the GOP had with Trump.
The GOP had a primary and had some solid candidates. It would be a graceful move to simply nominate one of those younger, smarter, better candidates than to stupidly go with Trump.
The GOP had an easy path to a decent nominee. The Ds had a path but it was more difficult.
Wilson never formally announced an intent to run for a third term.
And of course you totally missed the point.
I did not argue that it could not happen. I stated the reason why it was more difficult for the Ds to displace Biden than for the Rs to pick someone other than Trump.
Do you or do you not have an outstanding question for me?
What it all really boils down to is Democrats chose Biden and now have to take the responsibility and repercussions of their actions which they alone made, and how "hard" it was or wasn't isn't at all relevant.
No, either directly or indirectly you've answered all my questions this evening. Thanks
Misdefelonies are bad. They’re bad!
I am NOT looking forward to the MIS DE WIENER jokes that will abound if certain candidates are advanced.
Y'all just made the puckered up church lady face before ya giggled.