ADVERTISEMENT

The New Lounge

If we’re calling that a win, let’s be honest…..

Fair enough. Here’s the thing though. The sky is falling crowd has predicted empty shelves, mass layoffs, and a collapsing stock market for three months, so a very low bar of success or a high bar of proof depending on your perspective has been set by anti- Trumpers. Where any decent news directly refutes predictions. In fact, even makes some of the predictions appear a tad unhinged frankly.
 
And the hits to the taxpayers just keep on coming. It could cost much more for the jet to be outfitted for Air Force 1 than it’s worth.

 
If we’re calling that a win, let’s be honest…..

Fair enough. Here’s the thing though. The sky is falling crowd has predicted empty shelves, mass layoffs, and a collapsing stock market for three months, so a very low bar of success or a high bar of proof depending on your perspective has been set by anti- Trumpers. Where any decent news directly refutes predictions. In fact, even makes some of the predictions appear a tad unhinged frankly.
I think there are some unhinged people on both sides. This is an extremely complex situation with a lot of variables, and it’s still unfolding. Where it ends up could go a lot of different directions depending on how things develop over the next few months.
 
I think there are some unhinged people on both sides. This is an extremely complex situation with a lot of variables, and it’s still unfolding. Where it ends up could go a lot of different directions depending on how things develop over the next few months.
Exactly. So why not just let things play out before declaring Armageddon? Nothing we say or do will change the outcome. If after one year, things are going south, I will be with you in calling Trump a failure. But right now it is simply too early for the meltdowns that the MSM is creating.
 
I was originally going to hold off on this for a couple more days, but since the new inflation numbers are already being used as proof that the economic fallout from tariffs was overblown, let’s talk about what’s actually happening.

Yes, the April CPI report showed a slight dip in inflation. The number came in at 2.3 percent for the past 12 months, just under the expected 2.4 percent. That’s good news in isolation, but it doesn’t mean the full impact of the trade war has passed. These tariffs were massive, and the economic shock they caused doesn’t show up overnight. Disruptions take time to move through supply chains. Inventory gets reordered at higher costs, contracts get renegotiated, shipping lanes adjust. Those pressures are still building.

If we’re being consistent, we also have to ask this: if a 0.1 percent beat on inflation is enough to declare victory, then does Biden get the credit? Because this number covers the last year, and most of that policy landscape was his. Or do we only hand out wins when it fits the narrative?

The U.S. and China did agree to a 90 day pause on escalating tariffs. As part of that truce, the U.S. rolled back some tariffs on specific categories of Chinese goods, lowering them from as high as 145 percent to around 30 percent. China, in turn, reduced its tariffs on select U.S. goods from 125 percent to 10 percent. This is not a comprehensive trade agreement. It’s a temporary deescalation, meant to calm markets and buy time for negotiations. No structural reforms. No long term strategy. Just a tactical pause under economic pressure.

This is being framed as strategic decoupling, but what it really looks like is a forced walk back. China didn’t cave. Their exports kept climbing, and they used targeted retaliations like rare earth restrictions to send a message. Meanwhile, our markets took a hit, businesses got squeezed, and the administration blinked. This isn’t a long term win. It’s a sign the U.S. economy wasn’t in a position to absorb this level of disruption without serious consequences.

And even with the rollback, a 30 percent tariff is still massive. That’s not some manageable fee tucked into the margins. It’s a huge cost that filters into everything from electronics to machinery to household goods. The real hit comes when businesses start restocking at new prices, not old inventory. So even if inflation feels calm today, the cost of this policy is still working its way down the line. That’s not a political prediction. That’s just how supply chains work.

About that 258 billion dollar surplus. April always shows a surplus. It’s tax season. Receipts surge as businesses and individuals file. That’s happened under every president. Tariffs may add some revenue, but they’re also a tax on consumers and businesses here. If we’re calling that a win, let’s at least be honest about what actually caused it.

We were told tariffs would pay down the deficit. We were told China would fold. Now the story is shifting again. Every time the goalposts move, we’re expected to forget the last promise.

And this fits the broader trend we’ve seen with Trump. Create a problem, fix the problem you made, then declare victory. The way this policy is built isn’t about long term resilience. It’s about chaos first, credit later.

Also, let’s cool the jets on the stock market. A quick rebound isn’t a policy endorsement. Markets chase headlines, not strategy. They’re not exactly known for long term judgment, and they’re definitely not a stand-in for a stable economy.

The new tax bill, officially titled the One Big Beautiful Bill, includes a projected 4.9 trillion dollar increase to the deficit over the next decade. That’s tough to reconcile with Trump’s promise to eliminate the deficit using tariff revenue. That was the pitch. Tariffs would fund everything. But now we’re scaling those back, and at the same time pushing a tax plan that explodes the deficit? If we’re not collecting the tariffs, how exactly do the numbers work? Haha.
This post reminded me of a topic we’d discussed a few weeks ago. How insiders always cash in.
Assuming Trump and his advisors had at least a rough outline of a plan. Insiders had access to the plan and also knew the market would get a hard on once it looked like a semblance of sanity had returned , leading to a huge day like today. Or they weren’t privy to the actual plan, but trusted the basic premise that Trump wouldn’t do something as intentionally stupid as tank the stock market. This would pertain more to generally wealthy people than specifically just insiders. Either way people with money they can afford to lose cashed in. Wonder how many had to close shop due to the tariffs
 
  • Like
Reactions: Th0r
This post reminded me of a topic we’d discussed a few weeks ago. How insiders always cash in.
Assuming Trump and his advisors had at least a rough outline of a plan. Insiders had access to the plan and also knew the market would get a hard on once it looked like a semblance of sanity had returned , leading to a huge day like today. Or they weren’t privy to the actual plan, but trusted the basic premise that Trump wouldn’t do something as intentionally stupid as tank the stock market. This would pertain more to generally wealthy people than specifically just insiders. Either way people with money they can afford to lose cashed in. Wonder how many had to close shop due to the tariffs
Hopefully the pause and then drastic reduction helped avoid closure for the following businesses ( posted two months ago), but this thoroughly covers a wide range of business owners from all over the US, and provides clarity on the different ways tariffs can hurt small business

 
  • Like
Reactions: Th0r
This post reminded me of a topic we’d discussed a few weeks ago. How insiders always cash in.
Assuming Trump and his advisors had at least a rough outline of a plan. Insiders had access to the plan and also knew the market would get a hard on once it looked like a semblance of sanity had returned , leading to a huge day like today. Or they weren’t privy to the actual plan, but trusted the basic premise that Trump wouldn’t do something as intentionally stupid as tank the stock market. This would pertain more to generally wealthy people than specifically just insiders. Either way people with money they can afford to lose cashed in. Wonder how many had to close shop due to the tariffs
Insiders aside, what worries me most in all this is the retail crowd. Big investors can take a hit and wait things out, but smaller ones don’t have that kind of cushion. After years of being trained to “buy the dip,” a lot of people are jumping into a market that is unpredictable and disconnected from the bigger picture. The reality is, no one knows what’s going to happen tomorrow. Maybe we’ve already seen the bottom. I don’t know. But I doubt it. And that uncertainty makes this a risky moment for the people who can least afford to get it wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KDSTONE
Here’s what’s still out there and why I’m not exactly sold on the idea that the market’s in great shape:

Tens of millions of student loan borrowers are shifting from zero dollar payments back to monthly bills, or facing wage garnishment if they can’t pay. That’s a direct hit to consumer spending, especially for younger households already stretched thin.

At the same time, hundreds of thousands of federal jobs are being cut, with even more indirect losses from canceled grants and government contracts. That’s a lot of income disappearing from local economies.

The 90 day pause on tariff hikes isn’t a solution, it’s a breather. If countries don’t make a deal, tariffs go right back up and the risk of retaliation is real.

New tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals are being discussed, which would raise costs in already vulnerable sectors tied to healthcare and tech.

Meanwhile, we’re still dealing with 10 percent tariffs on most imports and 30 percent on Chinese goods, plus additional duties on aluminum, steel, and autos. These are still pushing prices up and squeezing supply chains.

Long term bond yields are the highest they’ve been in decades, which raises borrowing costs across the board and offers investors a safer, high yield alternative to equities.

CAPE ratios are hovering near dot com bubble levels, suggesting the market is priced for best case outcomes while the underlying conditions tell a very different story.

All of this adds up to a pretty shaky foundation. Some risks are already showing up in the numbers. Others are still looming. Either way, it’s hard to look at this and call it stable.
 
Last edited:
Here’s what’s still out there and why I’m not exactly sold on the idea that the market’s in great shape:

Tens of millions of student loan borrowers are shifting from zero dollar payments back to monthly bills, or facing wage garnishment if they can’t pay. That’s a direct hit to consumer spending, especially for younger households already stretched thin.

At the same time, hundreds of thousands of federal jobs are being cut, with even more indirect losses from canceled grants and government contracts. That’s a lot of income disappearing from local economies.

The 90 day pause on tariff hikes isn’t a solution, it’s a breather. If countries don’t make a deal, tariffs go right back up and the risk of retaliation is real.

New tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals are being discussed, which would raise costs in already vulnerable sectors tied to healthcare and tech.

Meanwhile, we’re still dealing with 10 percent tariffs on most imports and 30 percent on Chinese goods, plus additional duties on aluminum, steel, and autos. These are still pushing prices up and squeezing supply chains.

Long term bond yields are the highest they’ve been in decades, which raises borrowing costs across the board and offers investors a safer, high yield alternative to equities.

CAPE ratios are hovering near dot com bubble levels, suggesting the market is priced for best case outcomes while the underlying conditions tell a very different story.

All of this adds up to a pretty shaky foundation. Some risks are already showing up in the numbers. Others are still looming. Either way, it’s hard to look at this and call it stable.
You’re laying out a solid case for skepticism about the market’s health, and it’s worth unpacking the points you’ve raised with a clear-eyed look at what’s happening. I’ll address each concern, ground it in available data, and assess how these factors might weigh on the broader economic and market outlook, keeping things concise but thorough.1. Student Loan Repayments ResumingThe shift from zero-dollar payments to active student loan repayments is a real drag on consumer spending. As of late 2023, when the federal student loan forbearance ended, about 43 million borrowers with roughly $1.6 trillion in federal student debt faced payments restarting. Average monthly payments range from $200–$400, per the Federal Reserve, hitting younger households (Gen Z and Millennials) hardest, who already allocate 50–60% of income to essentials like rent and groceries. Wage garnishment for defaulters—potentially 15–25% of disposable income—further crimps budgets.This reduces discretionary spending, which accounts for ~30% of U.S. GDP. Retail sales data shows early signs of weakness: October 2024 retail spending growth slowed to 0.1% month-over-month, per the Commerce Department, and consumer sentiment dipped to 68.9 in November 2024 (University of Michigan), partly due to debt pressures. The risk here is a feedback loop where weaker spending hits corporate revenues, especially in consumer-facing sectors like retail and hospitality.2. Federal Job Cuts and Economic Ripple EffectsHundreds of thousands of federal job cuts, alongside reduced grants and contracts, are a headwind for local economies. While precise 2025 figures are murky, proposed budget tightening under the new administration suggests a leaner federal workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics noted 2.8 million federal employees in 2024; a 10% cut would mean ~280,000 jobs lost. Indirect losses—contractors, small businesses near federal hubs—could double that impact.Places like Washington, D.C., and military base towns are especially vulnerable, as federal spending supports 15–20% of local GDP in these areas. The multiplier effect means each lost job cuts broader economic activity by 1.5–2x. Early data shows government spending growth slowing to 1.2% annualized in Q3 2024 (BEA), and further cuts could tip regions into contraction, dragging on national GDP growth, projected at 2.1% for 2025 by the IMF.3. Tariff Pause and Retaliation RisksThe 90-day tariff hike pause is a tactical delay, not a resolution. Current tariffs—10% on most imports, 30% on Chinese goods—already add ~0.5% to U.S. consumer prices, per the National Bureau of Economic Research. Ifავ11.2% duties on aluminum, steel, and autos further inflate costs. If the pause ends without trade deals, reimposed or escalated tariffs could spike inflation, with estimates suggesting a 20% across-the-board tariff could raise consumer prices by 1–2%.Retaliation is a real threat: in 2018–19, China, Canada, and the EU hit back with $100 billion in counter-tariffs, hurting U.S. exporters (e.g., agriculture, whiskey). X posts from trade analysts (e.g., @TradeGuy) highlight growing concern about a 2025 trade war, especially if China devalues the yuan to offset tariffs. This would disrupt global supply chains and raise costs for U.S. firms, squeezing margins and potentially triggering layoffs.4. Proposed Tariffs on Semiconductors and PharmaceuticalsNew tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals would hit critical sectors. Semiconductors face 25% tariffs on Chinese imports, but expanding duties to other sources (e.g., Taiwan, South Korea) could raise chip prices by 10–15%, per industry estimates, impacting tech giants and consumers (think higher iPhone or laptop costs). Pharmaceuticals, already grappling with 7.5–25% tariffs on some Chinese APIs (active pharmaceutical ingredients), could see drug prices rise 5–10% if duties expand, straining healthcare budgets.These sectors are supply-chain choke points: 80% of global chip capacity is in Asia, and China supplies 60% of U.S. generic drug ingredients. Disruptions here ripple fast, and recent X chatter from healthcare execs flags delays in drug production as a growing risk.5. Ongoing Tariff ImpactsExisting tariffs (10% global, 30% China, plus steel/aluminum/auto duties) continue to inflate costs. The Peterson Institute estimates these tariffs have raised U.S. consumer and producer prices by $100 billion annually, with 70% of the burden on U.S. households. Supply chain strains persist—port delays and freight costs are up 20% year-over-year (Drewry Shipping Index)—and firms like Walmart have flagged price hikes in 2025. This feeds inflation, which, at 2.6% in October 2024 (CPI), remains above the Fed’s 2% target, limiting room for rate cuts.6. High Long-Term Bond YieldsLong-term bond yields are at multi-decade highs, with the 10-year Treasury at 4.8% in early 2025 (per FRED data), up from 3.5% a year ago. This raises borrowing costs: mortgage rates are near 7.5%, corporate bond yields for BBB-rated firms hit 6%, and auto loan rates top 8%. Higher yields also make equities less attractive—S&P 500 dividend yields are just 1.3%—pulling capital to bonds.The Fed’s pause on rate cuts (funds rate at 4.75–5%) reflects inflation fears, but high yields signal tighter financial conditions. The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index fell to 90.2 in October 2024, with 25% of firms citing financing costs as a top concern. This could curb investment and hiring, slowing growth.7. Elevated CAPE RatiosThe Shiller CAPE ratio, at ~36 in early 2025, is near dot 2000 bubble levels (~40), signaling valuations assume rosy growth and low risks. Yet, S&P 500 forward P/E is 22, and earnings growth is slowing—Q4 2024 S&P earnings rose just 4% year-over-year, per FactSet. With GDP growth softening (2.5% annualized Q3 2024) and risks mounting, this suggests markets are priced for perfection. X posts from investors like @LynAlden point to parallels with 2000 and 2007, where high valuations met unexpected shocks.Synthesis and OutlookYour concerns paint a picture of an economy and market facing mounting headwinds:Consumer Pressure: Student loans and job cuts erode spending, risking a 0.5–1% GDP growth hit in 2025.Trade Risks: Tariffs, paused or not, drive inflation and retaliation, potentially adding 1–2% to CPI and disrupting supply chains.Financial Conditions: High yields and tight Fed policy raise borrowing costs, curbing investment and equity appeal.Valuation Risks: Stretched CAPE ratios leave little margin for error if earnings or growth falter.The foundation isn’t collapsing, but it’s shaky. Q1 2025 data—retail sales, ISM manufacturing, and CPI—will be critical. If consumer spending cracks or tariffs escalate, markets could correct 10–15%, especially in overvalued tech (NASDAQ P/E ~30). Defensive sectors (utilities, staples) and bonds may outperform if volatility spikes.You’re right to question the “great shape” narrative. The risks are real, and while the market’s been resilient, it’s skating on thinner ice than many admit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KDSTONE
You’re laying out a solid case for skepticism about the market’s health, and it’s worth unpacking the points you’ve raised with a clear-eyed look at what’s happening. I’ll address each concern, ground it in available data, and assess how these factors might weigh on the broader economic and market outlook, keeping things concise but thorough.1. Student Loan Repayments ResumingThe shift from zero-dollar payments to active student loan repayments is a real drag on consumer spending. As of late 2023, when the federal student loan forbearance ended, about 43 million borrowers with roughly $1.6 trillion in federal student debt faced payments restarting. Average monthly payments range from $200–$400, per the Federal Reserve, hitting younger households (Gen Z and Millennials) hardest, who already allocate 50–60% of income to essentials like rent and groceries. Wage garnishment for defaulters—potentially 15–25% of disposable income—further crimps budgets.This reduces discretionary spending, which accounts for ~30% of U.S. GDP. Retail sales data shows early signs of weakness: October 2024 retail spending growth slowed to 0.1% month-over-month, per the Commerce Department, and consumer sentiment dipped to 68.9 in November 2024 (University of Michigan), partly due to debt pressures. The risk here is a feedback loop where weaker spending hits corporate revenues, especially in consumer-facing sectors like retail and hospitality.2. Federal Job Cuts and Economic Ripple EffectsHundreds of thousands of federal job cuts, alongside reduced grants and contracts, are a headwind for local economies. While precise 2025 figures are murky, proposed budget tightening under the new administration suggests a leaner federal workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics noted 2.8 million federal employees in 2024; a 10% cut would mean ~280,000 jobs lost. Indirect losses—contractors, small businesses near federal hubs—could double that impact.Places like Washington, D.C., and military base towns are especially vulnerable, as federal spending supports 15–20% of local GDP in these areas. The multiplier effect means each lost job cuts broader economic activity by 1.5–2x. Early data shows government spending growth slowing to 1.2% annualized in Q3 2024 (BEA), and further cuts could tip regions into contraction, dragging on national GDP growth, projected at 2.1% for 2025 by the IMF.3. Tariff Pause and Retaliation RisksThe 90-day tariff hike pause is a tactical delay, not a resolution. Current tariffs—10% on most imports, 30% on Chinese goods—already add ~0.5% to U.S. consumer prices, per the National Bureau of Economic Research. Ifავ11.2% duties on aluminum, steel, and autos further inflate costs. If the pause ends without trade deals, reimposed or escalated tariffs could spike inflation, with estimates suggesting a 20% across-the-board tariff could raise consumer prices by 1–2%.Retaliation is a real threat: in 2018–19, China, Canada, and the EU hit back with $100 billion in counter-tariffs, hurting U.S. exporters (e.g., agriculture, whiskey). X posts from trade analysts (e.g., @TradeGuy) highlight growing concern about a 2025 trade war, especially if China devalues the yuan to offset tariffs. This would disrupt global supply chains and raise costs for U.S. firms, squeezing margins and potentially triggering layoffs.4. Proposed Tariffs on Semiconductors and PharmaceuticalsNew tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals would hit critical sectors. Semiconductors face 25% tariffs on Chinese imports, but expanding duties to other sources (e.g., Taiwan, South Korea) could raise chip prices by 10–15%, per industry estimates, impacting tech giants and consumers (think higher iPhone or laptop costs). Pharmaceuticals, already grappling with 7.5–25% tariffs on some Chinese APIs (active pharmaceutical ingredients), could see drug prices rise 5–10% if duties expand, straining healthcare budgets.These sectors are supply-chain choke points: 80% of global chip capacity is in Asia, and China supplies 60% of U.S. generic drug ingredients. Disruptions here ripple fast, and recent X chatter from healthcare execs flags delays in drug production as a growing risk.5. Ongoing Tariff ImpactsExisting tariffs (10% global, 30% China, plus steel/aluminum/auto duties) continue to inflate costs. The Peterson Institute estimates these tariffs have raised U.S. consumer and producer prices by $100 billion annually, with 70% of the burden on U.S. households. Supply chain strains persist—port delays and freight costs are up 20% year-over-year (Drewry Shipping Index)—and firms like Walmart have flagged price hikes in 2025. This feeds inflation, which, at 2.6% in October 2024 (CPI), remains above the Fed’s 2% target, limiting room for rate cuts.6. High Long-Term Bond YieldsLong-term bond yields are at multi-decade highs, with the 10-year Treasury at 4.8% in early 2025 (per FRED data), up from 3.5% a year ago. This raises borrowing costs: mortgage rates are near 7.5%, corporate bond yields for BBB-rated firms hit 6%, and auto loan rates top 8%. Higher yields also make equities less attractive—S&P 500 dividend yields are just 1.3%—pulling capital to bonds.The Fed’s pause on rate cuts (funds rate at 4.75–5%) reflects inflation fears, but high yields signal tighter financial conditions. The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index fell to 90.2 in October 2024, with 25% of firms citing financing costs as a top concern. This could curb investment and hiring, slowing growth.7. Elevated CAPE RatiosThe Shiller CAPE ratio, at ~36 in early 2025, is near dot 2000 bubble levels (~40), signaling valuations assume rosy growth and low risks. Yet, S&P 500 forward P/E is 22, and earnings growth is slowing—Q4 2024 S&P earnings rose just 4% year-over-year, per FactSet. With GDP growth softening (2.5% annualized Q3 2024) and risks mounting, this suggests markets are priced for perfection. X posts from investors like @LynAlden point to parallels with 2000 and 2007, where high valuations met unexpected shocks.Synthesis and OutlookYour concerns paint a picture of an economy and market facing mounting headwinds:Consumer Pressure: Student loans and job cuts erode spending, risking a 0.5–1% GDP growth hit in 2025.Trade Risks: Tariffs, paused or not, drive inflation and retaliation, potentially adding 1–2% to CPI and disrupting supply chains.Financial Conditions: High yields and tight Fed policy raise borrowing costs, curbing investment and equity appeal.Valuation Risks: Stretched CAPE ratios leave little margin for error if earnings or growth falter.The foundation isn’t collapsing, but it’s shaky. Q1 2025 data—retail sales, ISM manufacturing, and CPI—will be critical. If consumer spending cracks or tariffs escalate, markets could correct 10–15%, especially in overvalued tech (NASDAQ P/E ~30). Defensive sectors (utilities, staples) and bonds may outperform if volatility spikes.You’re right to question the “great shape” narrative. The risks are real, and while the market’s been resilient, it’s skating on thinner ice than many admit.
What, no line breaks.
Whatever. I guess that's pretty thorough.
 
-Comey being investigated for his 8657 post.

-thoughts on the Presidents mid-east trip? Did read that some Biden officials were impressed with it.
 
I want to personally apologize to @Dattier. I thought he was lying when he said he couldn’t tell that Biden’s brain was fried. This is the media he watches so it makes complete sense now.

We always knew the Msm was in the tank for the Dems, especially with the advent of Fox News in the late 90s when they no longer had moderate and conservative viewers to worry about offending. Then came the Obama era when they all had tingles up their legs for 8years, when the Dems looked the other way re: mass denial of due process, the IRS targets of conservatives, American citizens killed in drone attacks. The level of coordination and complicity between the Dems and the msm has gotten more sophisticated and top down over the years.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dahntay#1
-Comey being investigated for his 8657 post.

-thoughts on the Presidents mid-east trip? Did read that some Biden officials were impressed with it.
Re: Qatar, he should have demanded that all Hamas “freedom fighters” be expelled immediately. Should have also demanded that all hostages be released immediately since Qatar and Iran control the pursestrings. But his talking about how handsome they all were and how impressive the camels were probably was more successful no doubt.
Re: Syria I actually support the removal of sanctions, new regime fresh start and all, and if the Saudis and Syrians get on board with the Abraham Accords it will further isolate Iran on the world stage. Back to Syria: an estimated 100k Alawahis and Druze have been killed the past couple of months. Where are the cries of genocide, the college protests?
But who are we kidding? This trip was about $ for American business and Trump brought back a boatload
 
No tax on overtime and social security, yay. No tax on tips is just stupid. Not really up to date on most of it.
Why re: the bold?

Also, for anyone, in a nutshell, what's the disagreement in the House GOP?
 
Last edited:
Biden and his inner circle would do anything to stay in power, we know this. If this is true, and it has a greater than 90 % chance easily, this is damning. They were perfectly willing to trot Joe out for another term, let a deeply unpopular Vp take the reins early on in his second term, if it weren’t for the disastrous debate. These are people who don’t give a rats ass about the will of the people.
Worst of all, they think we’re stupid.
Once cancer metastasizes to the bone, its advanced to the pt that it’s highly doubtful that they didn’t know about this before August of 24 when he withdrew from the race

 
Last edited:
Biden and his inner circle would do anything to stay in power, we know this. If this is true, and it has a greater than 90 % chance easily, this is damning. They were perfectly willing to trot Joe out for another term, let a deeply unpopular Vp take the reins early on in his second term, if it weren’t for the disastrous debate. These are people who don’t give a rats ass about the will of the people.
Worst of all, they think we’re stupid.
Once cancer metastasizes to the bone, its advanced to the pt that it’s highly doubtful that they didn’t know about this before August of 24

I'm no fan of Biden, but what they did to him will go down as one of the biggest con jobs in history. Even worse is some people actually thought he was running the country.
 
I'm no fan of Biden, but what they did to him will go down as one of the biggest con jobs in history. Even worse is some people actually thought he was running the country.
“What they did to him”, true, but also what they tried to do to the American people. Lying and gaslighting about his physical and mental health a) to remain in power and b) to check off their sacred box of firsts with Kamala knowing full well she was incompetent Ideally, she’d have taken over in Joe’s second term early on so she didn’t actually have to run for office
 
I'm no fan of Biden, but what they did to him will go down as one of the biggest con jobs in history. Even worse is some people actually thought he was running the country.
I’m not sure many people actually believed that. To say otherwise out loud would acknowledge their complicity in the coverup. So we have Dems like Datt who play the “ First I’ve heard of it” card when presented with evidence of his cognitive decline and others who play the whatabout card or the “ I just live in the present. I don’t look back” deflection game
 
I’m not sure many people actually believed that. To say otherwise out loud would acknowledge their complicity in the coverup. So we have Dems like Datt who play the “ First I’ve heard of it” card when presented with evidence of his cognitive decline and others who play the whatabout card or the “ I just live in the present. I don’t look back” deflection game
Well they spent 3 and a half years calling us liars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KDSTONE
And then there’s the Binder. It wasn’t enough to simply say that Joe was fit for office. She had to tell us that Joe “could run rings around his staff” energy wise and was the smartest person she knew. Sadly, the latter may be true depending on who she knows, but I call bullsh- on the former.
 
Biden and his inner circle would do anything to stay in power, we know this. If this is true, and it has a greater than 90 % chance easily, this is damning. They were perfectly willing to trot Joe out for another term, let a deeply unpopular Vp take the reins early on in his second term, if it weren’t for the disastrous debate. These are people who don’t give a rats ass about the will of the people.
Worst of all, they think we’re stupid.
Once cancer metastasizes to the bone, its advanced to the pt that it’s highly doubtful that they didn’t know about this before August of 24 when he withdrew from the race

I 100% think this was the plan. I called it over a year ago. They wanted to pull the DEI double whammy by having a “black” woman become president by coming in the back door.

What I can’t understand is why they let Biden do the debate in the first place. Obviously they knew his brain was mush, so why would they let him do it? That part still doesn’t make sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KDSTONE
I 100% think this was the plan. I called it over a year ago. They wanted to pull the DEI double whammy by having a “black” woman become president by coming in the back door.

What I can’t understand is why they let Biden do the debate in the first place. Obviously they knew his brain was mush, so why would they let him do it? That part still doesn’t make sense to me.
I’ve wondered that as well. Maybe they figured if Biden lost his train of thought a couple of times or got a few names wrong it would pale in comparison to the crazy sh- Trump said. Unfortunately for them, Trump was more restrained and calmer than usual that night. After the first fifteen minutes all he had to do was run out the clock.
 
What I can’t understand is why they let Biden do the debate in the first place. Obviously they knew his brain was mush, so why would they let him do it? That part still doesn’t make sense to me.
I wonder if they didn’t try some form of medication recommended by their doctors. Drugs not on the market. Sounds odd to suggest it, but these are some evil people.

As we know though, whatever their plan was, backfired something awful. His debate was so bad, they were toast, and knew it.
 
I wonder if they didn’t try some form of medication recommended by their doctors. Drugs not on the market. Sounds odd to suggest it, but these are some evil people.

As we know though, whatever their plan was, backfired something awful. His debate was so bad, they were toast, and knew it.
True. From the cancer to the cognitive decline to the alleged cold, there’s no telling what the man had in his blood stream that night.

Sadly, the Bidens have become experts at lies and coverups when it comes to their health.

 
I’m not sure many people actually believed that. To say otherwise out loud would acknowledge their complicity in the coverup. So we have Dems like Datt who play the “ First I’ve heard of it” card when presented with evidence of his cognitive decline and others who play the whatabout card or the “ I just live in the present. I don’t look back” deflection game
It's not a "card."
 
I’ve wondered that as well. Maybe they figured if Biden lost his train of thought a couple of times or got a few names wrong it would pale in comparison to the crazy sh- Trump said. Unfortunately for them, Trump was more restrained and calmer than usual that night. After the first fifteen minutes all he had to do was run out the clock.
Not being an official member, not being particularly happy with them, and most definitely not being in the inner circle, I can only speculate on what the Democratic Party figured. On the bold, but outside the context of the debate -- what a second term of President Trump would mean and what he would do -- deception was the best move they had at the time. I would be breathing a sigh of relief if we were currently in day 1 of Kamala Harris' tenure as the 47th President. Doing anything to stay in power? Yeah... and?
 
I think I’ve figured it out. The original plan was to push Biden across the finish line and then install Kamala. However, polling numbers were showing Trump was clearly going to win. If it’s completely obvious Biden is going to lose and then they rig the election again, the steal would’ve been too obvious.

Next they purposely sabotage Biden by making him do the debate so the world can see how incapacitated he is. The concerted campaign with the msm then starts to get him out and Kamala in. They put everything into trying to convince the American people that Kamala was a legitimate candidate.

So essentially I think they said “We know Biden can’t beat Trump, so we will take our chances with Kamala and try to hide her through the election.

Thoughts from non-libs?
 
It’s sad to hear all the excuses the Dems are making for the cover up of Biden’s health issues. Anyone with half a brain knew he wasn’t fit to run our country in 2020. Now, everyone knows he didn’t.
Would you consider it a successful cover-up, at least through the 2020 election, if not most of his term?
 
True. From the cancer to the cognitive decline to the alleged cold, there’s no telling what the man had in his blood stream that night.

Sadly, the Bidens have become experts at lies and coverups when it comes to their health.

This one instance pretty much sums up the clash between the media and the right over Biden's presidency. In 2020 Jake Tapper had Laura Trump on his show. She spoke then of his mental decline. Tapper cut her off, mocking her saying she wasn't qualified to give the opinion she was giving, and that Biden's issue was a stutter. Fast forward to now. On an interview with Megyn Kelly, he admitted he was wrong, and called Laura Trump to apologize to her.
 
How is the VP's son's health relevant and therefore a cover-up that it wasn't shared publicly?
You must not have read the link. Second paragraph. The authors of this book clearly think it’s relevant; that’s why I posted it.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT