Biden Is So Confused -- He Needs To Have A Cognitive Test

1. 80

   Sharlee01posted 19 months ago

   
   
   
   As tempting as it is to simply chuckle at President Biden’s bumbling and catalog of inane statements, This one takes the cake... He calls out for a dead Congresswoman ---
   
   “I want to thank all of you here for including bipartisan elected officials like Rep. (Jim) McGovern, Sen. (Mike) Braun, Sen. (Cory) Booker, and Representative – Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie? I think she wasn’t going to be here – to help make this a reality,” Biden said.
   
   Walorski, who was 58, died last month in a car accident that also killed two of her staffers. She began serving in Congress in 2013. Before her death, the congresswoman was the co-chair of the House Hunger Caucus." Please read more
   https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics … conference
   
   " Representative --  Is Jackie here? Where is Jackie?
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY67wFC1tVM
   
   September 28, 2022
   
   White House fields multiple questions on why President Biden appeared to look for deceased congresswoman
   
   Jean-Pierre told reporters 14 times that deceased Rep. Jackie Walorski was 'top of mind' for the president on Wednesday
   
   President Biden had deceased Rep. Jackie Walorski "top of mind" Wednesday when he looked for her in the audience at an event addressing hunger in the U.S., according to White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.
   
   Jean-Pierre fielded roughly 10 questions Wednesday about the president’s gaffe during the White House press briefing. Jean-Pierre told reporters 14 times that the president wasn’t confused about whether Walorski was alive and in the room, but he had her "top of mind" because he will be meeting with her family on Friday.
   
   The Indiana congresswoman was killed in a car accident in August, which the White House noted in a statement at the time.
   
   "The president was naming the congressional champions on this issue and was acknowledging her incredible work," Jean-Pierre said. "He had already planned to welcome the congresswoman's family to the White House. On Friday, there will be a bill signing in her honor this coming Friday. So, of course, she was on his mind. She was top of mind for the president.
   
   Following questions about discussions between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia and pressing the White House on how it plans to respond to the suspected sabotage of two natural gas pipelines fueling Europe, reporters returned to the president’s confusion about whether the former Indiana congresswoman was still alive.
   
   If Walorski, who died in a car accident last month, was at the top of the president’s mind, another reporter asked, why was he looking for her in the room?
   
   "Again, I think people can understand. I think the American people out there who, you know, watch the briefing from time to time maybe at this moment will understand when someone is that top of mind," Jean-Pierre said again.
   
   Minutes later, a third reporter brought up the president’s slip, pushing Jean-Pierre to give an exasperated "Why one more time?" response.
   
   Jean-Pierre said the reporter, who asked whether Biden misread his teleprompter or if he was confused, was "jumping to a lot of conclusions."
   
   "I just answered the question. If I had, if that had been the case, I would have stated that," Jean-Pierre said. "I clearly have stated what you just laid out. What I have said is that she was on top of mind and that he is going to see her family in just two days time on Friday to honor her, to honor her work, to honor, to honor her legacy, if you will."
   
   After explaining why Biden singled out some Republicans on Tuesday and demurring on whether the president is pushing for Congress to pass legislation addressing concerns about antitrust issues with Big Tech, Jean-Pierre took another question about Walorski.
   
   A reporter said the "confusing part" was why Biden thought Walorski was "alive and in the room" if she was at "top of mind."
   
   "I don't find that confusing," she said. "I mean, I think many people can speak to, sometimes, when you have someone top of mind, they are at top of mind. Exactly that. And it is also, if you put it into context, it's not like it happened without outside of context."
   
   The reporter shot back that he has "John Lennon on top of mind just about every day. But I’m not looking around for him."
   
   "When you sign a bill for John Lennon as president, then we can have this conversation," Jean-Pierre concluded before taking the next question.

   replyreport
2. 86

   Valeantposted 19 months ago

   Yeah, that was bad.  Part of the reason why our party is looking for someone like Jamie Raskin to run in 2024.  But only if he does something about his awful hairdo.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

      Oh, missed your wit.  Hey, won't it be fun when 2024 rolls in?  I personally can't wait to see who will run on both sides. I don't know much about Raskin.
      
      Well, his hair could offer fodder, but would it not be nice if that would be the only thing, I mean the one thing, one could find wrong with the two candidates that will run?

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Valeantposted 19 months agoin reply to this

         Raskin is our party's equivalent to Jim Jordan.  The person that calls out the opposing party's hypocrisies.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

            Well, that kind of attitude could go a long way. I do know he is very fast on his feet, very intelligent, and would stand out in a debate.  He may be too liberal for the moderate Democrats, of which there are many.
            
            I think if Biden would have come out slow and just a bit left from the middle, his term would have been something very different. I think he would have gotten his policies moved along,  without all the turmoil.
            
            He was a bull in an already damaged china shop. He could have mended the divide with some, just by bringing in a calm in his first months. Instead, he poked the beehive. A better strategy would have produced better results.

            replyreport
         2. 95

            wildernessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            Hmmm.  I would say that what is needed far more is someone to call out their own party's hypocrisies.  For both parties.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

               True...

               replyreport
            2. 61

               Fayetteville Fayeposted 19 months agoin reply to this

               Politics has become pure tribalism and people stick with the tribe regardless if it's right or wrong. There aren't a lot of people who can remain objective when they evaluate an issue. It's evaluated only for the purpose of proving somehow it's positive for their party or to absolve their party. It's party above country. It's come to the point that people are so tribal they describe others as evil and really only relate to like-minded people. Party politicians have come to rely on this type of one track thinking. You can really do no wrong by your constituents.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Sharlee01posted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  When the word matches the deed, sometime one must offer the perfect word to point out the depth of deception. In the past, in my view, we did not often need to use such words as evil. However, at this point, I find the word appropriate in some incidents.

                  replyreport
               2. 90

                  GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  I think "politics" has always been 'purely tribal'. The degree of tribalism depends on the strength of the belief in the tribe's issue. That will never change, it can only be moderated.
                  
                  For instance, a 'deepest' core belief on an abortion-type issue will not accept change so the line is drawn. An issue like LGBT rights will also be a core belief, but not as deep, and the line would be more like a brush stroke—with room for moderation.
                  
                  We think it is so bad today because we are a more interconnected world with nearly instant access to everywhere and every major, or trivial event. I bet it was just as vehement and potentially violent then as it is today.
                  
                  That instant connectivity has given the extremist fringes a voice they never had before the 'Net, and the corrupt, (of character), ones a new tool of manipulation. There are a lot of nuts among us.
                  
                  The battle we should be fighting is to create more 3rd-party support among moderates. It's the only 'mitigation' that will counter any tribe's power grabs. We need to make them need us, (they already do, but we need to make that need stronger).
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     gmwilliamsposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                     Thank you Gus, +100000000000000.   Politics has always been a game, why do most people refuse to see this!!!!

                     replyreport
                     1. 90

                        GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                        Yep, the names change but human nature doesn't.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
            3. 77

               Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

               There have been such people.
               
               They are quickly removed from politics however, for doing so... or, in rare instances, they are forced to join the other party.
               
               Tulsi Gabbard is one such individual, when she ran on an anti-war platform that quickly got her ousted from the Debates, and later from the Party.
               
               "Regime change wars are bankrupting our country and our moral authority. We need to redirect those resources into a renewable, sustainable economy that works for everyone and bring about an era of peace. We must put service above self and reclaim our great democracy from the forces of hatred and division.
               
               Our military’s mission and purpose is to keep the American people safe. Our troops deployed to Syria initially to work with the Kurdish forces on the ground to go after and defeat ISIS, and that mission has largely been accomplished. Unfortunately, as this was happening since 2011, covertly initially with the CIA, there was a regime change war that was launched during that time as part of that war, and many of you might not be aware of it but our taxpayer dollars were being used to provide both direct and indirect support to terrorist groups in Syria like Al Qaeda and others in order to go in and topple the Assad government.
               
               I had a chance to go to Syria where I heard from the Syrian people, I heard from religious leaders who pleaded and begged for the United States to stop its support because they knew whether there were some that supported the Assad government, and others wanted to see him go, they knew that if the United States and other countries were successful in this regime change war the most powerful force on the ground would fill that vacuum and the most powerful force were these terrorist groups whose sole mission was to wipe out Christians and other minority groups…" ~ Tulsi Gabbard
               
               With thoughts and insight like that, she had no place in the Democratic Party.  She had no place in DC politics at all.  Not supporting war and regime change is to ensure you will never reach any position of power in American politics.

               replyreport