Joe Biden’s 9/2 Speech

[The Frankish Reich]

15 minutes ago, Foxx said:

you Lefties are funny. this is who you support, tff. he can't hold a train of thought for :14 and you guys want this running our country? seriously, you guys should have your heads examined.

 

you understand he is a marionette, right??

And I hear he's lost the Yoseminite vote.

Face facts, our next President will be in mental decline. No matter which one wins.

Here's a nice summary of what is called normal cognitive decline:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015335/

It appears to be the case with both Trump and Biden. Both are easy cases because they've been in the public eye for over 40 years. I see no reason to dub either one as suffering from dementia (which would be abnormal cognitive decline), but "decline" is pretty obvious.

Other examples of the rare persons in the political world who do not show (to me) any obvious decline despite their advanced ages: Pelosi and McConnell. (See how I did that? One from each side) Both seem to me to be exactly the same cognitively as they were when they first hit the public eye. 

Edited September 2, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[Golden Goat]

2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Re: the second sentence.  Hoax.  I’m just having fun with all of you alt-wrong kool-aid guzzlers!

 

Welp, if anyone knows about guzzling...

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

And I hear he's lost the Yoseminite vote.

Face facts, our next President will be in mental decline. No matter which one wins.

 

One of them is already in the throes of it.  The other still has yet to get there.

[The Frankish Reich]

14 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

One of them is already in the throes of it.  The other still has yet to get there.

I assume you mean Trump "has yet to get there." I urge you to compare some of the interviews he did in the 1980s with those he's doing today. Or just watch this (starting at 2:32) to see the "oranges" of my theory:

 

https://www.thewrap.com/bill-maher-campaign-ad-for-democrats-mocks-neurological-mess-trump-video/

 

The problem is that it is not a linear decline curve. Reagan struck me as fine in his 1980 run. By 1984 it was hit or miss, the kind of "good day/bad day" thing we say about grandpa. By the time he was leaving office it was obvious he had no business being in office the last couple years.

EDIT: Bill Clinton too. I saw a couple interviews with him around the DNC time. He's 74, he's had heart problems, and he's clearly lost a couple steps. He's been out of office for 20 years. And he's STILL younger than Trump by a couple months. Hillary, not so much. But then again women seem to have a genetic advantage.

I hate that we have come to this Time of Gerontocracy in America. But there it is. Trump/Biden, McConnell (or whomever become majority leader should the Dems take the Senate unless ... Schumer? He's a mere child of 69), Pelosi -- all at least in their mid-70s. What happened to what used to be called Generation X? We're just skipping over them entirely in political leadership? Straight from the boomers to the Millennials (God help us)

Edited September 2, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[Tiberius]

51 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The debates are going to be a train wreck.  The triggered fragile lefties should be prepared for another 4 years of Trump.    

The debates don’t matter. I bet the polls don’t move at all after any, or all three of them 

 

 

And Trump’s head might explode during one of the debates anyway. Hillary turned him into a stammering idiot 

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I assume you mean Trump "has yet to get there." I urge you to compare some of the interviews he did in the 1980s with those he's doing today. Or just watch this (starting at 2:32) to see the "oranges" of my theory:

 

https://www.thewrap.com/bill-maher-campaign-ad-for-democrats-mocks-neurological-mess-trump-video/

 

The problem is that it is not a linear decline curve. Reagan struck me as fine in his 1980 run. By 1984 it was hit or miss, the kind of "good day/bad day" thing we say about grandpa. By the time he was leaving office it was obvious he had no business being in office the last couple years.

EDIT: Bill Clinton too. I saw a couple interviews with him around the DNC time. He's 74, he's had heart problems, and he's clearly lost a couple steps. He's been out of office for 20 years. And he's STILL younger than Trump by a couple months. Hillary, not so much. But then again women seem to have a genetic advantage.

I hate that we have come to this Time of Gerontocracy in America. But there it is. Trump/Biden, McConnell (or whomever become majority leader should the Dems take the Senate unless ... Schumer? He's a mere child of 69), Pelosi -- all at least in their mid-70s. What happened to what used to be called Generation X? We're just skipping over them entirely in political leadership? Straight from the boomers to the Millennials (God help us)

 

Of course there is mental slowing with age, especially when compared to 30 years ago.  But that's why the debates will tell us a lot.

[The Frankish Reich]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Of course there is mental slowing with age, especially when compared to 30 years ago.  But that's why the debates will tell us a lot.

OK, I agree with you on that.

My sense: it's Reagan-Carter all over again. A significant percentage of voters will want to see whether Biden seems to have it together enough to be President and whether he can come off as old middle-of-the-road Joe before they make the final decision to vote for him. If he passes the test, he wins. And remember: the bar's not set all that high.

[Big Blitz]

2 hours ago, dpberr said:

Joe Biden's campaign operates in a 100% leave nothing to chance controlled environment and I think it's a big mistake. 

 

I think it's easier for Biden to make a speech with a lot of rest and rehearsal, two things you don't get as President.  Similar to HRC in 2016, she was at her best on the days she'd campaign after a few days off.  As the campaign turned into the sprint in October, she was shot.  

 

I'm sorry Democrats, the doing speeches from nearly empty rooms in Delaware, where you can control who's in the room, isn't going to get this job done.  He needs to get out and talk to people and take on the unfriendly press too.  It's part of the job.

 

 

They're stuck.  They limited capacity and kept everyone 6 feet apart.  Unless of course you are protesting racism.

 

They thought these "rules" would hurt Trump (no rallies, massive events).  

 

Their only hope is to rig the debates.  I'm going to lay out in a thread soon how this is going to happen....

[KD in CA]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

It's like its the start of the forth quarter, Biden with a 10 point lead, and the football first and ten at his own 20. This speech was a six yard run straight up the middle. Democratic offensive line just pushing the old tired Repubs around! Get out of the way! 

 

Funny....a six yard rush is exactly what the 49ers got on their first play after getting the ball back with a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl.

 

Then at some point, they couldn't hide their QB any longer and he needed to make a play.

[The Frankish Reich]

27 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

Funny....a six yard rush is exactly what the 49ers got on their first play after getting the ball back with a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl.

 

Then at some point, they couldn't hide their QB any longer and he needed to make a play.

But Trump =/= Mahomes

Sometimes it makes sense to run it right up the middle 3 times. I'm not saying it'll work; I'm just saying it's a reasonable strategy.

EDIT: when your opponent is screaming "we want you out of your basement" it may be wise to say "why on earth would I do what YOU want me to do."

Edited September 2, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[keepthefaith]

Joe is scrambled eggs at this point.  It's sad that so many politicians stay in office until the grave or nearly that long.  Same for SCOTUS justices.  Don't these poeple have something better to do in the twilight of their lives?  Even sadder is that the electorate continually keeps so many old farts in office and so many old farts that deserve to be benched on job performance alone.  Trump too at this point is too old. 

 

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

OK, I agree with you on that.

My sense: it's Reagan-Carter all over again. A significant percentage of voters will want to see whether Biden seems to have it together enough to be President and whether he can come off as old middle-of-the-road Joe before they make the final decision to vote for him. If he passes the test, he wins. And remember: the bar's not set all that high.

 

We'll see how he does.  Especially how he defends supporting a radical agenda...and then not and his lies about what he would have done to combat COVID.

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

We'll see how he does.  Especially how he defends supporting a radical agenda...and then not and his lies about what he would have done to combat COVID.

First we'll need to send you to reeducation camp. It's the CHINA VIRUS not COVID. ?

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

First we'll need to send you to reeducation camp. It's the CHINA VIRUS not COVID. ?

 

I don't want to use a racist canard/dog whistle...

[The Frankish Reich]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I don't want to use a racist canard/dog whistle...

Good choice. I have no issue with "Wuhan Virus" since that is its origin, and there's no other virus of public health significance that originated there. China Virus is so nonspecific that its racist undertones clearly exceed any gain in clarity/simplicity (which China virus?)

Edited September 2, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I saw the speech. I'd give it a 6/10 as a political speech. Nothing earth shattering. Biden wanted to stake out his turf (not for defunding the police, etc., etc.) and he did. Certainly not inspiring. Delivered in an o.k. manner. A few verbal missteps, but nothing to support the wild "his brain is a gelatinous mass of amyloid plaques" stuff I hear from Trump supporters.

Meanwhile, to show my even handedness: Trump's RNC acceptance speech was also a 6/10 as a political speech. Also kind of a nothingburger policy-wise, but delivered reasonably effectively in a manner of a person who (assuming no preexisting bias) doesn't seem wild and out of control. The Davy Crockett stuff doesn't resonate with me, but I know lots of seniors that it probably does resonate with. Good use of the props of the White House and National Mall, regardless of what you think about the propriety of using such backdrops for political purposes.

But yet we predictably have this. "Greatest speech ever." "Senile old grandpa who doesn't even know where he is."

What is wrong with people? Is there anything in the political world other than confirmation bias these days?

These are two old men who have seen better cognitive days. It is a rare person in his/her mid-70s who is not showing some significant decline, and these guys are no exception. (To me the exception in this race was Bloomberg, who seems to be exactly the same whiny-yet-self-important know-it-all he was in his 50s.)  Neither was any kind of genius in the traditional IQ sense, but both had their gifts as different types of glad-handers/deal-makers. 

Fair enough.  There were plenty of reasons to dislike Biden before this election cycle, it’s one of reasons dems rejected him for presidency when he was 100%.  
 

As for the gelantainous mass,  we’ll have to agree to disagree.   There are many signs of the onset of dementia over the last several months.  From referencing long dead allies, to forgetting words like “God” in a prepared speech to reading the teleprompter text including the description, he’s on his way.  His unwillingness to take/answer questions, the overmanagement of his appearances and the like certainly buttress that school of thought.  On top of all that....he’s basically been a couch potato for the past several years.  He’s been under no real job-related stress, and still, I see a geezer in full geez. 
 

As for DJT, your thoughts are duly noted but his style has been the same since he started.  He rambles, repeats himself, delivers a few excellent jabs, lather/rinse/repeat.  When I was Biden when he was in his prime plagiarizing days, he was an effective speaker in the College football coach style.  
 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

But Trump =/= Mahomes

Perhaps — but in terms of political instincts, no one in DC is close to his level. He’s proven time and time again to have a seemingly preternatural instincts when it comes to politics. He keeps on being right/on the more popular side, sooner or later you can’t write it off as mere luck. 

[The Frankish Reich]

13 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Perhaps — but in terms of political instincts, no one in DC is close to his level. He’s proven time and time again to have a seemingly preternatural instincts when it comes to politics. He keeps on being right/on the more popular side, sooner or later you can’t write it off as mere luck. 

I agree with that. Up until he kind of jumped the shark, Scott Adams of Dilbert fame was right on point regarding Trump's ability to "read the crowd" -- one of the reasons the rallies are so effective for him. He tests his messaging and then finds the weak point to exploit. I sense we're already seeing that as he moves away from Sleepy Joe to "Hidin' Biden".  His "low energy" takedown of Jeb was perfectly executed because it just seemed to fit the bill.

[Brueggs]

16 hours ago, Tiberius said:

The debates don’t matter. I bet the polls don’t move at all after any, or all three of them 

 

 

And Trump’s head might explode during one of the debates anyway. Hillary turned him into a stammering idiot 

If the debates don't matter, why is Biden camp trying so hard to make them not happen?  I know it hurts, but even you have to know why...

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, Brueggs said:

If the debates don't matter, why is Biden camp trying so hard to make them not happen?  I know it hurts, but even you have to know why...

 

Because...Trump lies.  That's why!

[Wacka]

Soros is there in sunglasses in the Guyana jungle saying "come to me my babies". Biden is just the figurehead. Same result for the  dem party.  Tibs,etc. have already drunk the Kool-Aid

 

 

Aside: when typing this, the autocorrect changed dem to dementia and Kool to Kill.  I am not kidding!

[The Frankish Reich]

4 hours ago, Brueggs said:

If the debates don't matter, why is Biden camp trying so hard to make them not happen?  I know it hurts, but even you have to know why...

Because that's what the guy who's winning does. 

Trump felt like he was riding high (his polls were better; whether he was actually "leading" is uncertain) he was all about finding reasons not to debate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/us/politics/trump-presidential-debate.html

A few months of coronavirus and he was singing a different tune:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-presidential-debate-to-be-moved-up-due-to-mail-in-voting

 

So much for that theory. I love how Trumpies conveniently forget his LOL flubs. Maybe we could try injecting a little common sense inside the body?

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Because that's what the guy who's winning does. 

Trump felt like he was riding high (his polls were better; whether he was actually "leading" is uncertain) he was all about finding reasons not to debate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/us/politics/trump-presidential-debate.html

A few months of coronavirus and he was singing a different tune:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-presidential-debate-to-be-moved-up-due-to-mail-in-voting

 

So much for that theory. I love how Trumpies conveniently forget his LOL flubs. Maybe we could try injecting a little common sense inside the body?

 

Those links don't make the case you are suggesting. 

 

First, the Times article was an anonymous source (so, likely BS). Second, that article didn't say Trump didn't want to debate. 

[IDBillzFan]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Those links don't make the case you are suggesting. 

 

First, the Times article was an anonymous source (so, likely BS). Second, that article didn't say Trump didn't want to debate. 

 

Alinsky 101: accuse your competition of doing all the bad things that you are actually doing.

[Brueggs]

39 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Because that's what the guy who's winning does. 

Trump felt like he was riding high (his polls were better; whether he was actually "leading" is uncertain) he was all about finding reasons not to debate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/us/politics/trump-presidential-debate.html

A few months of coronavirus and he was singing a different tune:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-presidential-debate-to-be-moved-up-due-to-mail-in-voting

 

So much for that theory. I love how Trumpies conveniently forget his LOL flubs. Maybe we could try injecting a little common sense inside the body?

Maybe he should have thought about that before running for president?  It seems like old Joe has "forgotten" that the job has certain requirements.  If he isn't up for the debate, that is on him and his team.  If he's scared because that's what the other guy does, it just further proves his incompetence.  People can dislike Trump all they want, it doesn't lend any more credibility to Biden.  He is quite possibly the weakest presidential candidate of all time.

[Nanker]

Are you kidding? Putin is quaking in his boots at the terrifying thought of meeting Joe the Dope Biden. Likewise Xi of China, and Un of PRK. There’s no way they want Joe to be the next POTUS. They’ll do everything thing they can to get their lackey Trump re-elected. 
 

It’s so obvious.

 

[Chef Jim]

On 9/2/2020 at 12:17 PM, SectionC3 said:

 

 

All of the lying by the current occupant of the White House surely has made him sick!

 

 

What lies?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

[The Frankish Reich]

8 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Those links don't make the case you are suggesting. 

 

First, the Times article was an anonymous source (so, likely BS). Second, that article didn't say Trump didn't want to debate. 

Look who doesn’t trust “anonymous sources” now — a (former, apparently) Q-Anon fan! You’re right: all that Q-ey anonymous stuff is likely BS. 

I’m glad you’ve finally come to your senses. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[Deranged Rhino]

46 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Look who doesn’t trust “anonymous sources” now — a (former, apparently) Q-Anon fan! You’re right: all that Q-ey anonymous stuff is likely BS. 

I’m glad you’ve finally come to your senses. 

 

Again, Q isn't about anonymous sources, it's in fact the opposite of that. Q shares information which can be vetted and confirmed on its own merits regardless of Q. The NYT has shown one thing for certain over the past four years of its operation: anonymous sources = BS. You might want to consider why you keep believing them when they keep on proving to be wrong. 

[WEATHER DOT COM]

6 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Again, Q isn't about anonymous sources, it's in fact the opposite of that. Q shares information which can be vetted and confirmed on its own merits regardless of Q. The NYT has shown one thing for certain over the past four years of its operation: anonymous sources = BS. You might want to consider why you keep believing them when they keep on proving to be wrong. 

 

This is the stupidest thing ever written in PPP. You have out-Tibsed yourself - congrats

[Reality Check]

2 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

I am the stupidest thing ever written in PPP. You have out-Tibsed yourself - congrats

 

[The Frankish Reich]

9 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Again, Q isn't about anonymous sources, it's in fact the opposite of that. Q shares information which can be vetted and confirmed on its own merits regardless of Q. The NYT has shown one thing for certain over the past four years of its operation: anonymous sources = BS. You might want to consider why you keep believing them when they keep on proving to be wrong. 

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "anonymous"

[T master]

On 9/2/2020 at 1:44 PM, SectionC3 said:

My goodness that was lovely.  That’s what a president should sound like.  Dignified.  Smart.  Reserved.  Thoughtful. Truthful.   Cognizant of the significant problems facing middle America right now with respect to the struggle to re-open schools to in-person learning.  I can’t wait until he is our President.  It’s time to restore America’s soul, and Joe Biden is just the person to do it. 

 

Discuss!

 

 

Any one can read words put on a screen in front of them & sound dignified. Smart. Reserved. Thoughtful. & Truthful when they have a speech writer hell i bet you believe Cuomo, Diblasio & Schumer are doing a great job too ! 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "anonymous"

 

In this context it means: fictional person who does not exist. 

 

The NYT track record on using such sources makes that abundantly clear. How can you continue to take them seriously when they lied to your face for years about Russia (!) and Mueller using only "anonymous sources" who turned out to be either completely wrong or non existent? 

[The Frankish Reich]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fox-news-backs-part-of-atlantic-report-that-trump-disparaged-fallen-soldiers%3F_amp%3Dtrue
oops. Looks like multiple sources confirm that this came from an honest to God

real life staffer. He/she could be lying, sure. But a real source. Now as for your mysterious

Q ....

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fox-news-backs-part-of-atlantic-report-that-trump-disparaged-fallen-soldiers%3F_amp%3Dtrue
oops. Looks like multiple sources confirm that this came from an honest to God

real life staffer. He/she could be lying, sure. But a real source. Now as for your mysterious

Q ....

 

They managed to get 2 anonymous sources (both of whom are allegedly former members of 45's administration, just like people such as Sally Yates & Colonel Vindman were members of the administration) to confirm 4 anonymous sources? (And there's absolutely no chance whatsoever that the 2 were among the original 4 because there's no way an anonymous source with an axe to grind would talk to 2 different reporters.  Right?)

 

Well, that seals it.

Edited September 5, 2020 by Taro T

[The Frankish Reich]

9 hours ago, Taro T said:

 

They managed to get 2 anonymous sources (both of whom are allegedly former members of 45's administration, just like people such as Sally Yates & Colonel Vindman were members of the administration) to confirm 4 anonymous sources? (And there's absolutely no chance whatsoever that the 2 were among the original 4 because there's no way an anonymous source with an axe to grind would talk to 2 different reporters.  Right?)

 

Well, that seals it.

The point was this: Deranged Rhino said that when he referred to "anonymous sources," he really meant "no source at all; Jeffrey Goldberg (the Atlantic) just made it up."

And obviously that's not true.

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/04/jennifer-griffin-of-fox-news-did-not-confirm-most-salacious-part-of-atlantic-story/

Read the article, not the headline. It appears that several reporters confirm that "senior officials" confirmed most everything; the only question is whether Trump called WW1 vets "suckers" as opposed to other vets.

And somehow his beloved "Q" doesn't count as "anonymous" because, well, I can't figure that one out.

I have tried, here and in another thread, to understand this reasoning; I can't because it simply defies all logic.

Edited September 5, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The point was this: Deranged Rhino said that when he referred to "anonymous sources," he really meant "no source at all; Jeffrey Goldberg (the Atlantic) just made it up."

And obviously that's not true.

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/04/jennifer-griffin-of-fox-news-did-not-confirm-most-salacious-part-of-atlantic-story/

Read the article, not the headline. It appears that several reporters confirm that "senior officials" confirmed most everything; the only question is whether Trump called WW1 vets "suckers" as opposed to other vets.

And somehow his beloved "Q" doesn't count as "anonymous" because, well, I can't figure that one out.

I have tried, here and in another thread, to understand this reasoning; I can't because it simply defies all logic.

 

Did read the article.  It's still anonymous sources confirming anonymous sources.  And there is at least 1 item in the article that has been debunked by several people, that being that it was 45's call not to drive to the cemeteries.  The secret service nixed that, as was reported at the time & since.  If we know 1 part of the anonymously sourced story is false, it seems fair to assume the rest of it is as well.  Especially when we know so many "FORMER senior officials" hate 45 & have an axe to grind.

 

Don't have a horse in the "anonymous sources made the story up" or "the Atlantic reporter made the story up" race.  But considering the amount of BS that has been put out in the MSM the past 4 years, definitely won't give the story credit until someone/something more credible provides confirmation.

 

As for Q vs Qanon vs ???, believe that Q (whoever they are) is in the administration or has ridiculously close ties to it.  Don't believe all Q's info is true, but some of it is.  Qanon is people (believers & non-believers) trying to interpret the "drops" with their own spin and more than a few are loons & more than a few are like the sock puppets here trying to derail anything that may be legit about it.

 

Won't speak for DR on that matter.  He's provided his background & motivations here on many occasions and he is more than capable to speak for himself.  He also has been right on a lot of stuff that seemed preposterous almost 4 years ago, so personally put a lot more of his theories and info about politics into the "plausible" bin than into the "preposterous" one due to his track record.  And by politics am encompassing all the Spygate, Russiagate, & human trafficking under that umbrella.  So much of that stuff that seemed outlandish when it was brought up, turned out to be spot on.  (The alien stuff & some other remains in their original bins, but for the politics stuff he has done the work to know more of the behind the scenes stuff than anybody else here & IMHO we are very fortunate to have him posting here.)  

 

My 2 cents.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Did read the article.  It's still anonymous sources confirming anonymous sources.  And there is at least 1 item in the article that has been debunked by several people, that being that it was 45's call not to drive to the cemeteries.  The secret service nixed that, as was reported at the time & since.  If we know 1 part of the anonymously sourced story is false, it seems fair to assume the rest of it is as well.  Especially when we know so many "FORMER senior officials" hate 45 & have an axe to grind.

 

Don't have a horse in the "anonymous sources made the story up" or "the Atlantic reporter made the story up" race.  But considering the amount of BS that has been put out in the MSM the past 4 years, definitely won't give the story credit until someone/something more credible provides confirmation.

 

As for Q vs Qanon vs ???, believe that Q (whoever they are) is in the administration or has ridiculously close ties to it.  Don't believe all Q's info is true, but some of it is.  Qanon is people (believers & non-believers) trying to interpret the "drops" with their own spin and more than a few are loons & more than a few are like the sock puppets here trying to derail anything that may be legit about it.

 

Won't speak for DR on that matter.  He's provided his background & motivations here on many occasions and he is more than capable to speak for himself.  He also has been right on a lot of stuff that seemed preposterous almost 4 years ago, so personally put a lot more of his theories and info about politics into the "plausible" bin than into the "preposterous" one due to his track record.  And by politics am encompassing all the Spygate, Russiagate, & human trafficking under that umbrella.  So much of that stuff that seemed outlandish when it was brought up, turned out to be spot on.  (The alien stuff & some other remains in their original bins, but for the politics stuff he has done the work to know more of the behind the scenes stuff than anybody else here & IMHO we are very fortunate to have him posting here.)  

 

My 2 cents.

 

 

 

...Bolton of all people, the epitome of anti-Trump even refuted it.......