Are Democrats Deliberately Choosing Impaired Candidates?

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); }

My observation leads me places I would rather not go. With Joe Biden in the White House, he is clearly doing what he is told by others. This much is clear; he simply does not have the stamina, the wisdom, or the political acumen necessary to be an effective President of the United States. His gaffes, his verbal dyslexia, his delusional prevarications, his garbled verbiage, and his ability to reliably make statements his handlers have to mop up afterward, are all deeply troubling. No political party would run such a candidate unless two things were happening: One, the election would be guaranteed to affect a win for the candidate, and two, the candidate would simply be a figurehead for the real powers behind the throne. Biden would have to know that others would be running his presidency. Were he and Jill that easy to roll?

If someone offered a Democrat the most powerful position on the planet and told him, “Don’t worry, we will do all the hard work, you just relax and sign the papers,” wouldn’t most Democrats close the space between them and a pen at the speed of light? Biden would have to have assumed that his old buddy, Barack Obama (and his underlings) would be doing the heavy lifting, allowing Lunchbucket Joe to cruise, basking in the reflected glory without lifting a finger.

The bulb in Kamala Harris’ attic is also known to be a little dim. She is supremely arrogant, lacking in leadership and a decent work ethic. She is lazy, entitled, and is unable to keep staff due to her abrasive and very ambitious personality. She was not even able to get enough votes from her own party in 2020 to get on the ticket for POTUS and is so impaired on so many levels that no one wants much to do with her. So imagine our surprise when she was chosen by the Democrat Party as Biden’s running mate. The most unpopular Democrat candidate gets to be vice-president without having a single thing to offer except her well-documented pliability. Kamala’s myriad word salads and bizarre rants about “working together” and the “passage of time,” to name just two, reveal a vapidity that is hard to explain unless her intellectual betters viewed her as malleable in return for the perks of being Veep. She is a mental cipher now a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

John Fetterman’s candidacy seems to be another cruelty perpetrated on the American public in the name of winning at all costs. The candidate for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania has physical and mental problems that preclude coherent statements and reactions to the pressures of running for office. He has already revealed he is not up to the job.

Yet Fetterman is another case where the Democrat Party has chosen the weakest, not the strongest, candidates. It is almost as though the party has made a decision to deliberately choose impaired, malleable, but ambitious people who have failed in their past attempts at wielding power or who are recognized as those who might sell their souls for some power. Were the candidates told, “Don’t worry, we’ve got this”? Were they told, “We’ll handle the voting aspect of this, you just do what you’re told and you’ll cruise your way to power”?

It would make sense if this were indeed the case, because we already know that the Democrats’ insatiable lust for power creates new cynical methodologies: Choose the weak to represent the stronger powers behind the thrones. A malleable winner is preferable to a strong, self-sufficient winner who may not take orders from the real powers behind the thrones. That the Left has an agenda is clear; it involves weakening the populace through policies such as a national gun registry. But they cannot put those policies in place unless the selected leaders promote those radical agenda items which further the leftist cause.