National Affairs

CNN Commentator Implies Joe Biden Knew “Questions Were Coming” Ahead Of Disastrous Debate
National Affairs

CNN Commentator Implies Joe Biden Knew “Questions Were Coming” Ahead Of Disastrous Debate

/

CNN’s presidential debate will forever be remembered as a disastrous night for President Joe Biden.

The presumptive Democratic nominee had a low bar after years of criticism over his declining physical and mental ability. Despite this, it’s fair to say he still fell short of barely-existent expectations.

Even the Democrat-friendly CNN were critical of Biden’s performance, with commentators in the post-debate analysis referencing the DNC’s internal ‘panic’. One, Erin Burnett, was particularly skeptical of the President given that he knew “every one of these questions is coming”, implying that he had been given the questions beforehand.

“He goes through six days of preparation, a camp day, more than that. And they know the rules,” Burnett added. “He practices with the mics. He knows every one of these questions is coming, and yet he couldn’t fill the time.”

Check it out:

The clip prompted reaction from many at the unsurprising bias towards Biden.

Another responded how Biden’s performance demonstrated a rare moment of national unity.

Questions were also raised as to whether the Democrats were seeking to replace Biden in time for November’s election.

Whether Thursday’s debate has ultimately changed the election result will always remain a mystery. That said, if Trump was predicted to win, he’s almost certain to now.

Biden had one job: to appear competent – and he couldn’t even keep up a façade for an hour and a half.

Border Patrol Union Denies False Joe Biden Endorsement Claim
National Affairs

Border Patrol Union Denies False Joe Biden Endorsement Claim

/

The official union of U.S. border control has denied a false claim by President Joe Biden in the first presidential debate of 2024.

CNN’s 90-minute debate on Thursday, June 27, was dominated by the President’s incapability to present a strong, coherent argument after years of criticism over his mental capacity. However, there was also a war-of-words over immigration and border security – an issue of heightened sensitivity following the alleged murder of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray earlier in the month by two illegal immigrants.

Having come under heavy fire in recent months with just three in 10 American approving the administration’s approach to immigration, Biden sought to fight back on Thursday night by claiming he had received an endorsement from the U.S. Border Patrol. “By the way the border patrol endorsed me, endorsed my position. In addition to that, we found ourselves in a situation…” Biden claimed.

That claim was false, as the Border Patrol is a federal agency which cannot endorse candidates.

Biden may have been referring to the National Border Patrol Council – the official union which represents border staff. However, they too denied the endorsement with a short but effective post on X, adding that not only have had they never endorsed Biden, they never will in the future either.

Social media users responded with high praise for the union.

The Border Patrol Union provided further criticism of the President prior to the debate for his comments regarding Congressional Republicans. “In reality, Republicans have actually funded more agents in recent appropriations bills in spite of Biden—not because of him,” the union said before complimenting Trump.

What’s your view? Has the Biden administration done a good job at the border, or is Trump the man to crackdown on immigration? Let us know in the comments below.

Joe Biden’s Campaign Has Started (Accidentally) Promoting Donald Trump
National Affairs

Joe Biden’s Campaign Has Started (Accidentally) Promoting Donald Trump

/

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ re-election campaign is not going very well.

Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump leads the Democrat duo in most polls, including in the ever-important swing states. There’s even worse news for Biden when independent and third-party candidates are factored in, with Trump widening his lead to five percentage points in some scenarios.

To aid their struggling campaign, the Democrats have launched the Biden-Harris HQ page on X (formerly Twitter). The page regularly posts snippets from Trump’s campaign, or out-of-context comments designed to cause outrage and make social media users despise the former president.

The trouble is this form of negative campaigning can backfire spectacularly.

For example, on Tuesday, June 25, @BidenHQ posted a screenshot from CNN listing a number of Trump’s commitments to overhaul the government…. all of which seem pretty awesome. Give it a look:

In the replies, many agreed with Trump’s pledges.

Others noted how the Biden-Harris campaign was now effectively supporting Trump’s.

Although individual accounts will not alter the campaign, their existence alone is a good metaphor. Biden is struggling (in more ways than one), and so the launch of account which posts attack ads says a lot about the desperation within his campaign. By doing so, he runs a risk of promoting his rival to all those who do not think that Trump is necessarily evil.

Granted, Trump has not got to where he is today by refusing to attack his rival – if anything, he’s worse for it – but the Republican is not the incumbent. If the President is unable to promote the benefits of his tenure in office, he’s unlikely to win over many voters.

White House Stands By Communications Director Despite Controversial Social Media Posts
National Affairs

White House Stands By Communications Director Despite Controversial Social Media Posts

/

A White House official has tried to backpedal on a series of social media posts in which he attacked police, criticized Israel and promoted the conspiracy of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.

Tyler Cherry, who has been promoted as an associate communications director at the White House, said his past social media posts “do not reflect” his current views, pledging his support to the Joe Biden administration and its work on environmental policies. The rest of his entire X/Twitter feed has been completely wiped.

Cherry – who previously worked at the Department of Interior – hastily turned off replies when social media users highlighted his past writings, of which there are many he hoped we’d never see.

Cherry’s response was typical of all newly promoted public figures who have been a little bit too carefree in their public postings before entering a new role.

Furthermore, his vague cover-up prompted many to wonder as to which of his controversial views he had since rejected.

Cherry has expressed views which the Biden administration has come under heavy fire from. In 2018, he called for the abolition of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which contradicts Biden’s supposedly tough-on-immigration stance. He also accused Baltimore Police of being “motivated by explicit and implicit racial biases”, and posted his support for the “ending the occupation of Palestine” during the 2014 Gaza War.

Not only has Cherry come under fire for his own controversial views, but the decision to appoint him has borne further questions on the White House itself. Nevertheless, senior deputy press secretary Andrew Bates defended the decision in a statement to Fox News, telling them: “We’re very proud to have Tyler on the team.”

Republican State AGs Unite to Oppose New Gag Order in Trump Documents Case
President Donald Trump talks on the phone aboard Air Force One during a flight to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to address a joint gathering of House and Senate Republicans, Thursday, January 26, 2017. This was the President’s first Trip aboard Air Force One. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
Latest, National Affairs

Republican State AGs Unite to Oppose New Gag Order in Trump Documents Case

/

Dozens of Republican state attorneys general have submitted an amicus brief in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case in Florida, asking the court to deny Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request for a gag order. The group of 24 attorneys called Smith’s request “presumptively unconstitutional”.

In April while his hush-money criminal trial in Manhattan was underway, Trump was handed a $9,000 fine by Judge Juan Merchan for contempt of court after the former president repeatedly violated a gag order. When he handed Trump the fine, Merchan warned that he could face jail time if he continued to violate the gag order.

Donald Trump Jr. has accused Smith of tampering with evidence relating to the case after it was revealed that the order of the documents had changed since they were seized from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort by the FBI in 2022. Following the revelation, the trial date was postponed indefinitely by Judge Aileen Cannon.

The filed amicus brief argued that candidates’ freedoms to discuss key issues of the day formed the foundation of fair elections. It also claimed that attempts to silence a candidate would harm voters and deny them access to valuable information.

The brief expressed its concerns that “fundamental” First Amendment rights are violated when one candidate’s “agents” seek a court order to silence debate on issues central to an election campaign. The group of state prosecutors, which was led by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, stressed that all branches of government should be careful about censoring political speech on key issues, especially leading up to a presidential election.

Smith’s motion argued that Trump had made statements that posed a significant danger to law enforcement involved in the case. The special counsel’s concerns relate to Trump’s claims that FBI agents were “locked & loaded” when they raided his property. Trump suggested that there was a plot between the FBI and the White House to assassinate him. Prosecutors slated the “grossly misleading claims” by Trump, which relate to a standard boilerplate policy used by the FBI in such operations that seeks to minimize the use of deadly force in emergency scenarios.

Kamala Harris Wants To Give First-Time Homeowners ,000… But There’s A Catch
National Affairs

Kamala Harris Wants To Give First-Time Homeowners $25,000… But There’s A Catch

/

Vice President Kamala Harris wants to give first time homeowners $25,000 for a down payment plus $400 a month towards mortgage payments.

But there’s a catch.

Eligible candidates must be the first generation in their family to buy a home to secure the $25,000 grant. In addition, a “certain tranche of folks” will receive the $400 a month to help pay their mortgage costs.

The purpose of this all is pandering, of course. Harris’ pledge is catered towards Black Americans whose support she needs to help President Joe Biden secure the White House for another four years – a demographic that Democrats are increasingly desperate to hold on to. Even 15-20% of the Black vote going toward Trump would be catastrophic for them.

And it seems to have worked – at least to the audience she was directly pandering to, which applauded her racialnomics:

Immediately, there’s a problem. If you’re looking for somewhere which will be covered by the payments, then you must search hard for a property worth no more than $92,000.

Obviously that math assumes the person in question is unemployed, but even if a poor person was able to come up with another $400 a month to put towards the mortgage, the maximum home price they’d be able to afford is far below the national average.

Alas, it has raised questions over whether the policy actually promotes equality or favors one group over another – and what kind of loopholes may exist.

It does raise the question as to whether Harris’ is seeking to “buy” votes through wild, idealistic policies, rather than focusing on purposeful economic actions.

The Democrats have been ramping up their campaign to secure the Black vote after a disastrous four years in the approval ratings. Black voters make up large parts of swing states such as Pennsylvania, which the Biden-Harris administration needs to secure if it is to earn another four years in the White House.

Lastly, is any of this legal? Who knows – that certainly didn’t seem to matter for the Administration when it came to their unconstitutional student debt bailouts.


Scroll to Top