Attacks On Mental Acuity Of Joe Biden By Jewish Conservative Talk Show Hosts Only Undermining Their Credibility

It is very disillusioning that a number of Jewish Conservative Talk show hosts are becoming notorious for their vicious attacks on Joe Biden’s mental acuity and fitness, ridiculing him in a shocking manner.

These same characters would never attack Ronald Reagan, who clearly was mentally impaired, and of course, they overlook the constant evidence of the mental decline of Donald Trump.

Who are these disgraceful talk shows hosts who have no dignity, ethics, or morals?

David Horowitz

Dennis Prager

Michael Savage

Mark Levin

Ben Shapiro

All five have been involved over the years in all kinds of controversies, demonstrating a total lack of ethics, and undermining their reputations to anyone who believes in common decency.

The two thirds to three fourths of American Jews who believe in common decency, and have compassion and empathy about issues and personalities in public affairs, are appalled by the willingness of these characters to defend a lawless, immoral, dangerous President, who has demonstrated every day how he is willing to destroy American democracy in his desire to destroy the Constitution and the rule of law.

Just the fact that they fail to see that Trump consorts with and justifies antisemites, such as David Duke and Richard Spencer, and that he promotes racism, nativism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and misogyny is an insult to all who are Jewish who believe in the basic teachings of the faith.

They actually are promoting antisemitism, and endangering American Jews in the process, without any moral compass or concern.

13 comments on “Attacks On Mental Acuity Of Joe Biden By Jewish Conservative Talk Show Hosts Only Undermining Their Credibility

  1. D August 10, 2020 10:47 am

    ‘The Wallets of Wall Street Are With Joe Biden, if Not the Hearts’

    Through donations, finance executives played a critical role in helping Joe Biden turn his campaign around. They’ve mostly grown to like him, if not love him.

    By Kate Kelly, Shane Goldmacher and Thomas Kaplan (08.09.2020)

    As Wall Street donors arrived at a fund-raiser for Joseph R. Biden Jr. at a Midtown Manhattan restaurant earlier this year, campaign staff members asked if they wanted to sign up for pictures with the candidate. More than a few of the bankers and private-equity investors politely declined, opting to mingle over glasses of wine instead.

    It was Feb. 13, and Mr. Biden had just been thrashed in the New Hampshire primary after finishing poorly in the Iowa caucuses a week earlier. He was in desperate need of both momentum and money. Still, as Mr. Biden confided to the private-equity executive who co-hosted the event that night: Win or lose, he planned to “play my heart out to the very end,” the executive, Jon Gray, later recalled.

    And finance executives have played a critical role in helping him do it. As Mr. Biden survived a turbulent winter to become the presumptive Democratic nominee running against President Trump, the millions of dollars Wall Street denizens donated to Mr. Biden and outside groups supporting his candidacy have helped him build a strong lead in national polls.

    Wall Street has fared extraordinarily well under Mr. Trump: deep cuts to taxes, slashed regulations and, until the pandemic hit, record stock prices. But in recent months, dozens of bankers, traders and investors said in interviews, a sense of outrage and exhaustion over Mr. Trump’s chaotic style of governance — accelerated by his poor coronavirus response — had markedly shifted the economic and political calculus in their industry.

    More and more finance professionals, they say, appear to be sidelining their concerns about Mr. Biden’s age — 77 — and his style. They are surprisingly unperturbed at the likelihood of his raising their taxes and stiffening oversight of their industry. In return, they welcome the more seasoned and methodical presidency they believe he could bring.

    They may not exactly be falling in love with Mr. Biden. But they are falling in line.

    “I’ve seen meaningful numbers of people put aside what would appear to be their short-term economic interest because they value being citizens in a democracy,” said Seth Klarman, founder of the hedge fund Baupost. A longtime independent, Mr. Klarman was at one point New England’s biggest giver to the Republican Party. But in this cycle, he has given $3 million to groups supporting Mr. Biden.

    Or as James Attwood, a managing director at the Carlyle Group and a former investment banker at Goldman Sachs, put it, “For people who are in the business of hiring and firing C.E.O.s, Donald Trump should have been fired a while ago.” (Mr. Attwood contributed $200,000 in June to the Biden Action Fund, a joint committee with the Democratic National Committee.)

    In May and June alone, the Biden Action Fund raised more than $11.5 million. That tally — a good measuring stick for Wall Street support because it was set up in part to draw contributions from that industry — included $710,000 from Josh Bekenstein, a co-chair of Bain Capital, and his wife.

    But Wall Street money has proved to be a double-edged sword for Democrats, as Hillary Clinton discovered when she was hounded four years ago for delivering private speeches to Goldman Sachs and other firms. Progressive voters and activists — many of whom backed Mr. Biden’s more liberal rivals in the primary — are particularly leery of any appearance of coziness with the finance industry.

    Asked about Wall Street’s role in Mr. Biden’s current bid, the campaign invoked Mr. Biden’s refrain that America wasn’t built by Wall Street bankers, C.E.O.s and hedge fund managers.

    “Everything you need to know about this, Joe Biden has said himself throughout his career — and repeatedly on the trail since the earliest days of this campaign,” said T.J. Ducklo, a Biden spokesman.

    As a senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden has for decades had relationships with credit-card companies there, but less of a presence in the financial power center of New York. He has counted a small circle of finance executives as supporters. Marc Lasry, the co-founder of Avenue Capital, for example, held a fund-raiser for Mr. Biden during his first run for president in 1988, and continues to back him now. The former hedge-fund executive Eric Mindich and the short-seller James Chanos have been supporters from well before the pandemic began.

    It doesn’t hurt that Mr. Biden has also not crusaded against Wall Street, the way his primary rivals Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders did. Financial executives mostly seem to believe that while their taxes would rise in a Biden administration, they would not be subjected to the kind of “fat cat” rhetoric that soured some of their relationships with former President Barack Obama.

    “Rich people are just as patriotic as poor people,” Mr. Biden told donors at a fund-raiser at the Carlyle Hotel in Manhattan last year. At a Brookings Institution gathering in 2018, he said, “I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason why we’re in trouble.”

    Mr. Biden’s more benign stance toward the finance industry has provoked skepticism among advocates for stricter regulation. “When the candidate doesn’t have a clear plan on something like Wall Street reform, it tilts the playing field toward what is probably the most powerful industry in the world,” said Carter Dougherty, a spokesman for Americans for Financial Reform, an advocacy group. “We need more than ‘not Trump appointees’ when it comes to financial regulation.”

    While Wall Street financiers tend to be more socially liberal, they have collectively swung back and forth between parties. Data from the Center for Responsive Politics show the securities and investment community donating more to President George W. Bush in 2004, and then to Mr. Obama in 2008, and then to Mitt Romney in 2012, followed by Mrs. Clinton in 2016, than to their respective presidential rivals.

    This year, it’s Mr. Biden. Financial industry cash flowing to Mr. Biden and outside groups supporting him shows him dramatically out-raising the president, with $44 million compared with Mr. Trump’s $9 million.

    Last month, multiple Wall Street bundlers, including Alan Leventhal, the chief executive of Beacon Capital; Nat Simons, who runs a clean-tech investment fund; and Mr. Gray, Blackstone’s president, held virtual fund-raisers for Mr. Biden. The giving has been so robust that the Biden campaign is now asking for at least $1 million in donations before it will confirm the former vice president’s attendance at an event, say bundlers.

    As the checks roll in, the Biden campaign has been carefully cultivating its relationship with the business community, with a focus on Wall Street. The outreach has included offering private briefings ahead of major policy rollouts and dangling various donor packages for the upcoming, and mostly virtual, Democratic National Convention.

    In one call last month, two of Mr. Biden’s top advisers on financial policy, Ben Harris and Jake Sullivan, led a wide-ranging conversation to preview the candidate’s economic plan, which focuses on broad policy initiatives like investing in green infrastructure projects and minority-owned businesses. Two former Treasury secretaries, Robert E. Rubin and Jacob J. Lew, were part of the call.

    Several major Wall Street executives and investors were also present, including Blair Effron, co-founder of the financial advisory firm Centerview Partners; Penny Pritzker, a fund-raiser and former commerce secretary; David Cohen, a top Biden bundler and Comcast executive; and Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of Google.

    Mr. Ducklo said the call was one of dozens the campaign held with a variety of groups, including members of the labor and small-business communities.

    Nonetheless, how Mr. Biden might affect their wallets is still a major concern for industry executives who aggressively fought the implementation of new regulations after the financial crisis of 2008. Some in the business community have suggested tweaks to the former vice president’s tax and economic policies in ways that might soften the impact for companies.

    At a separate July meeting with campaign staffers and a handful of Wall Street participants, Charles Phillips, chairman of the software company Infor and a onetime Morgan Stanley tech analyst, argued that Mr. Biden shouldn’t make huge expenditures on infrastructure and other new programs without also identifying spending cuts. “We can fund some of this by getting more efficient and getting rid of waste that no one will miss,” Mr. Phillips recalled saying. He said he also argued for a simpler tax code with a corporate rate lower than Mr. Biden’s proposed 28 percent.

    In addition to those watching the policy details, many financiers are closely attuned to Mr. Biden’s selection of a running mate, arguing that they might reconsider their votes if he were to choose someone like Ms. Warren, whose campaign sold coffee mugs that read “Billionaire Tears” in a nod to her proposed wealth tax on the superrich.

    Some in the finance industry are concerned about Ms. Warren’s emergence as an informal policy adviser, and the possibility that she could be installed as Treasury secretary.

    Mr. Biden’s policy platform on the issues affecting Wall Street’s most affluent players has been relatively sparse. He has proposed a series of tax increases on businesses and on wealthy individuals, including raising the top marginal income tax rate and taxing capital gains as ordinary income for the richest Americans. But he has not embraced a wealth tax like Ms. Warren’s, nor has he rolled out any kind of detailed policy plan focused on financial regulation.

    Since Mr. Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee, the campaign has appointed Rufus Gifford, a former finance director for the 2012 Obama campaign, as a deputy campaign manager overseeing the money operation nationwide. Mr. Gifford is in regular touch with Wall Street donors, coordinating a slew of virtual fund-raisers and discussing campaign issues with deep-pocketed financiers.

    In recent meetings with donors, Mr. Biden has said that while the wealthy are going to have to “do more,” the details of his tax hikes are still being hammered out, according to someone who has attended multiple fund-raisers but requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. At a virtual fund-raiser held in July, the candidate spoke of the need for corporate America to “change its ways.” But the solution, he said, would not be legislative.

    Back in February, Mr. Biden had taken a precious day off the trail to collect a critical $800,000 at two New York fund-raisers, including the one Mr. Gray co-hosted. “You’re putting me in a position to be able to be very competitive,” Mr. Biden said, thanking his Wall Street supporters.

    A few of his finance industry donors, looking back, have privately remarked how the evening turned out to be the most quintessential of Wall Street plays: seeing a distressed asset at that time, and buying low.

  2. Rustbelt Democrat August 10, 2020 11:03 am

    We donate to Biden frequently and we’re not rich.

  3. Former Republican August 10, 2020 11:05 am

    Lol. Trump wants to be added to Mt. Rushmore. I’d like to push him off the top of Mt. Rushmore.

  4. Pragmatic Progressive August 10, 2020 11:09 am

    Going up against Trump, Biden needs all the financial help he can get.

  5. Pragmatic Progressive August 10, 2020 11:11 am

    Former Republican – You express our feelings perfectly.

  6. Pragmatic Progressive August 10, 2020 4:45 pm

    How Mitch McConnell Is Making the Case For Ending the Filibuster

    The majority leader has shown it as a tool to neuter Congress as a legislative body.

    Over the weekend, Trump signed several memorandum (which he referred to as “bills” and others are calling “executive orders”) that are designed to signal that he actually cares about what is happening to Americans during this pandemic. I’ll let others discuss why they are not only unconstitutional, but ineffective, because I want to focus on what they tell us about the modern-day GOP.

    Apparently Senate Majority Leader McConnell is fine with the president’s move to completely neuter congress. He issued a statement praising Trump’s memorandum, which is the opposite of what he said when Obama signed DACA.

    [“Look, as the president has said, democracy is hard,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said after Obama proposed executive action on immigration in 2014. “Imposing his will unilaterally may seem tempting. It may serve him politically in the short term. But he knows it will make an already broken system even more broken.”]

    Knowing McConnell’s history under a Democratic president, this statement in response to Trump’s actions is a complete reversal.

    [The President’s team worked hard to bridge differences on many of the policies that would rapidly help American families…But Democrats have continued to block all of it while holding out for non-COVID-related liberal demands…
    Weeks ago, some predicted that Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer might actually prefer if the American people received no further bipartisan aid before the election. Sadly, they have done nothing to suggest otherwise.]

    Just to be clear, a top priority for Democrats has been funding for state and local governments, whose budgets are being decimated by the pandemic. McConnell refers to such aid as a “non-COVID-related liberal demand.”

    But beyond that, it is absolutely breath-taking to hear McConnell complain about the opposition party attempting to block legislation. For eight years we watched him obstruct anything Democrats tried to do—even stimulus funds in the midst of the Great Recession. The difference between then and now is that Pelosi and Schumer were at the table attempting to negotiate when Trump jumped the gun. All McConnell did in the past was to say “no,” without providing any alternatives.

    There is also the fact that McConnell has already made it clear that if Biden wins the election in November, he will proceed to obstruct anything Democrats try to do.

    [“If I’m still the majority leader in the Senate think of me as the Grim Reaper. None of that stuff is going to pass,” McConnell said while speaking to community leaders in Owensboro, Ky…
    “I guarantee you that if I’m the last man standing and I’m still the majority leader, it ain’t happening. I can promise you,” McConnell added.]

    So as McConnell praises Trump’s use of executive orders while Democrats attempt to negotiate, he accuses them of blocking legislation, even as he promises to be the Grim Reaper of obstruction if they win in November.

    All of this reminds me of something Grover Norquist said back in 2003. While bragging about a “permanent Republican majority,” he was asked what the GOP would do if Democrats were elected. His response was to say that “We will make it so that a Democrat cannot govern as a Democrat.”

    McConnell actually took that one step further. He seems intent on making it so that no one can actually govern. Not only does he attempt to obstruct anything Democrats want to do, he has been content to do nothing for the past four years as majority leader other than give rich people a tax break and stack the federal courts. Knowing that his party is heading for minority status, he’s made it clear that he wants the extremists he’s helped place on the federal courts for life to legislate from the bench.

    The end result of McConnell’s efforts will be to completely neuter congress as a legislative body. The only way a president will be able to accomplish anything would be via executive order—which will go directly to the courts for judges to decide.

    Given the undemocratic nature of the senate and our polarized political climate, it is very unlikely that either party will gain a supermajority in that body in the near future. If the only alternative is to allow McConnell to destroy the legislative process, it is probably time to end the filibuster and allow a simple majority to govern.

  7. Rational Lefty August 10, 2020 8:48 pm

    Trump claims that he will deliver his convention speech accepting the Republican presidential nomination from either the site of the 1863 Battle of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania or the White House in Washington, DC.

    A federal law known as the Hatch Act generally forbids the use of government property and employees for political activities with some exceptions. The President and vice president are exempt, but by using the White House as a backdrop for a nationally televised convention speech, Trump would risk ordering government staffers to violate the Hatch Act, experts say.

  8. Princess Leia August 11, 2020 12:15 pm

    Our school system’s nurses are of the opinion that the hybrid plan our school system has come up with is not going to work. They’re betting that schools will shut down again in a matter of days, if not weeks.

  9. Princess Leia August 12, 2020 8:29 am

    Because of the surge of virus cases in our neck of the woods, our school system is going to be starting remotely.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.