Such a ridiculous grievance. Everyone who voted for Biden voted for Harris too.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Such a ridiculous grievance. Everyone who voted for Biden voted for Harris too.

---

Really? Do tell because the VP is chosen after the primaries.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Such a ridiculous grievance. Everyone who voted for Biden voted for Harris too.

---

Amazing. Even when you're totally wrong you sound as though you believe what you say. There's just no way you can be that dumb though.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Such a ridiculous grievance. Everyone who voted for Biden voted for Harris too.

---

Amazing. Even when you're totally wrong you sound as though you believe what you say. There's just no way you can be that dumb though.

---

Not dumb….just bored.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Still another absolute scramble post.

This gal is either ….

Special needs
Under the age of 16
Over medicated

---

Youre a delusional, partisan hack, zealot. All you can do is offer up insults when facts you don't like are presented.

The fact is, Biden was polling well enough, to imo beat Trump again up until the second he made that disastrous TV appearance. The majority of the country was going to vote for him, again. Why? Because the majority of the country did not know the extent of his deterioration. Even most Republicans didn't, they just really hoped he was turning into a vegetable.

And how could they not know? Because there was no real primary. He was making very few public appearances, almost none where he fielded questions or did more than read a screen.

It's so simple.

---

Not true. If Biden had been polling well, then the June debate would not have been scheduled. The democracy handlers saw the writing on the walls and scheduled the debate in order to give them time to democratically install another candidate.

Personally I believe the democracy handlers had another candidate in mind but Biden stuck his party with Giggles the Wino by endorsing her right after he withdrew.

---

Polling has not been so accurate for a while. Biden was not favored in many polls, but also there was no clear victor.

I personally think Biden would have done better with the Harris strategy than Harris did, what I mean is saying nothing, just reminding people how much they dislike Trump. And I'm not saying he would have won, just that Democrats clearly thought he was their best shot at beating Trump, enough that the leadership didn't hold real primaries.

Clearly the majority of the country was not going to vote for 4 more years no matter what happened. Democrats did the same thing both parties always do, go with the incumbent, but it resulted in a complete disaster.

However, going back to the main point, this disaster was completely within the bounds of democracy. Nothing un-democratic about Biden running again unopposed. A joke of primaries did happen, and Biden won those. That was voters' chance to have a different candidate. And there is nothing un-democratic about him choosing to drop out. Or about Democrats pleading with him to drop out.

It is not ideal for democracy, but voters are ultimately to blame for the situation. They went with a guy who had barely made a public appearance, then turned away from him once they got a real good look at his mental faculties.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Such a ridiculous grievance. Everyone who voted for Biden voted for Harris too.

---

Do you honestly believe that voters who didn't even give that woman 1% of their vote in the primaries, all of the sudden felt she was worthy of being a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

Porteroso said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Still another absolute scramble post.

This gal is either ….

Special needs
Under the age of 16
Over medicated

---

Youre a delusional, partisan hack, zealot. All you can do is offer up insults when facts you don't like are presented.

The fact is, Biden was polling well enough, to imo beat Trump again up until the second he made that disastrous TV appearance. The majority of the country was going to vote for him, again. Why? Because the majority of the country did not know the extent of his deterioration. Even most Republicans didn't, they just really hoped he was turning into a vegetable.

And how could they not know? Because there was no real primary. He was making very few public appearances, almost none where he fielded questions or did more than read a screen.

It's so simple.

---

Not true. If Biden had been polling well, then the June debate would not have been scheduled. The democracy handlers saw the writing on the walls and scheduled the debate in order to give them time to democratically install another candidate.

Personally I believe the democracy handlers had another candidate in mind but Biden stuck his party with Giggles the Wino by endorsing her right after he withdrew.

---

Polling has not been so accurate for a while. Biden was not favored in many polls, but also there was no clear victor.

I personally think Biden would have done better with the Harris strategy than Harris did, what I mean is saying nothing, just reminding people how much they dislike Trump. And I'm not saying he would have won, just that Democrats clearly thought he was their best shot at beating Trump, enough that the leadership didn't hold real primaries.

Clearly the majority of the country was not going to vote for 4 more years no matter what happened. Democrats did the same thing both parties always do, go with the incumbent, but it resulted in a complete disaster.

However, going back to the main point, this disaster was completely within the bounds of democracy. Nothing un-democratic about Biden running again unopposed. A joke of primaries did happen, and Biden won those. That was voters' chance to have a different candidate. And there is nothing un-democratic about him choosing to drop out. Or about Democrats pleading with him to drop out.

It is not ideal for democracy, but voters are ultimately to blame for the situation. They went with a guy who had barely made a public appearance, then turned away from him once they got a real good look at his mental faculties.

---

Wrong. They turned away from him once they were no longer able to hide his mental difficulties from the public. Deceiving the public to get their candidate elected is about as undemocratic as it can get.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Still another absolute scramble post.

This gal is either ….

Special needs
Under the age of 16
Over medicated

---

Youre a delusional, partisan hack, zealot. All you can do is offer up insults when facts you don't like are presented.

The fact is, Biden was polling well enough, to imo beat Trump again up until the second he made that disastrous TV appearance. The majority of the country was going to vote for him, again. Why? Because the majority of the country did not know the extent of his deterioration. Even most Republicans didn't, they just really hoped he was turning into a vegetable.

And how could they not know? Because there was no real primary. He was making very few public appearances, almost none where he fielded questions or did more than read a screen.

It's so simple.

---

Not true. If Biden had been polling well, then the June debate would not have been scheduled. The democracy handlers saw the writing on the walls and scheduled the debate in order to give them time to democratically install another candidate.

Personally I believe the democracy handlers had another candidate in mind but Biden stuck his party with Giggles the Wino by endorsing her right after he withdrew.

---

Polling has not been so accurate for a while. Biden was not favored in many polls, but also there was no clear victor.

I personally think Biden would have done better with the Harris strategy than Harris did, what I mean is saying nothing, just reminding people how much they dislike Trump. And I'm not saying he would have won, just that Democrats clearly thought he was their best shot at beating Trump, enough that the leadership didn't hold real primaries.

Clearly the majority of the country was not going to vote for 4 more years no matter what happened. Democrats did the same thing both parties always do, go with the incumbent, but it resulted in a complete disaster.

However, going back to the main point, this disaster was completely within the bounds of democracy. Nothing un-democratic about Biden running again unopposed. A joke of primaries did happen, and Biden won those. That was voters' chance to have a different candidate. And there is nothing un-democratic about him choosing to drop out. Or about Democrats pleading with him to drop out.

It is not ideal for democracy, but voters are ultimately to blame for the situation. They went with a guy who had barely made a public appearance, then turned away from him once they got a real good look at his mental faculties.

---

Wrong. They turned away from him once they were no longer able to hide his mental difficulties from the public. Deceiving the public to get their candidate elected is about as undemocratic as it can get.

---

We have to be specific about who we are talking about. I said voters turned away from him once they understood his decline. It's the same thing you are saying, but either dishonesty or a reading comprehension problem causes you to say "wrong" then immediately agree with me. Please just read what is there.

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Still another absolute scramble post.

This gal is either ….

Special needs
Under the age of 16
Over medicated

---

Youre a delusional, partisan hack, zealot. All you can do is offer up insults when facts you don't like are presented.

The fact is, Biden was polling well enough, to imo beat Trump again up until the second he made that disastrous TV appearance. The majority of the country was going to vote for him, again. Why? Because the majority of the country did not know the extent of his deterioration. Even most Republicans didn't, they just really hoped he was turning into a vegetable.

And how could they not know? Because there was no real primary. He was making very few public appearances, almost none where he fielded questions or did more than read a screen.

It's so simple.

---

Not true. If Biden had been polling well, then the June debate would not have been scheduled. The democracy handlers saw the writing on the walls and scheduled the debate in order to give them time to democratically install another candidate.

Personally I believe the democracy handlers had another candidate in mind but Biden stuck his party with Giggles the Wino by endorsing her right after he withdrew.

---

Polling has not been so accurate for a while. Biden was not favored in many polls, but also there was no clear victor.

I personally think Biden would have done better with the Harris strategy than Harris did, what I mean is saying nothing, just reminding people how much they dislike Trump. And I'm not saying he would have won, just that Democrats clearly thought he was their best shot at beating Trump, enough that the leadership didn't hold real primaries.

Clearly the majority of the country was not going to vote for 4 more years no matter what happened. Democrats did the same thing both parties always do, go with the incumbent, but it resulted in a complete disaster.

However, going back to the main point, this disaster was completely within the bounds of democracy. Nothing un-democratic about Biden running again unopposed. A joke of primaries did happen, and Biden won those. That was voters' chance to have a different candidate. And there is nothing un-democratic about him choosing to drop out. Or about Democrats pleading with him to drop out.

It is not ideal for democracy, but voters are ultimately to blame for the situation. They went with a guy who had barely made a public appearance, then turned away from him once they got a real good look at his mental faculties.

---

Wrong. They turned away from him once they were no longer able to hide his mental difficulties from the public. Deceiving the public to get their candidate elected is about as undemocratic as it can get.

---

We have to be specific about who we are talking about. I said voters turned away from him once they understood his decline. It's the same thing you are saying, but either dishonesty or a reading comprehension problem causes you to say "wrong" then immediately agree with me. Please just read what is there.

---

I'm not agreeing with you. You're saying that there was nothing "un-democratic" in what they did. But actively hiding a candidate's mental incapacitation from the public in order to get him elected was as about as un-democratic as it gets.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Still another absolute scramble post.

This gal is either ….

Special needs
Under the age of 16
Over medicated

---

Youre a delusional, partisan hack, zealot. All you can do is offer up insults when facts you don't like are presented.

The fact is, Biden was polling well enough, to imo beat Trump again up until the second he made that disastrous TV appearance. The majority of the country was going to vote for him, again. Why? Because the majority of the country did not know the extent of his deterioration. Even most Republicans didn't, they just really hoped he was turning into a vegetable.

And how could they not know? Because there was no real primary. He was making very few public appearances, almost none where he fielded questions or did more than read a screen.

It's so simple.

---

Not true. If Biden had been polling well, then the June debate would not have been scheduled. The democracy handlers saw the writing on the walls and scheduled the debate in order to give them time to democratically install another candidate.

Personally I believe the democracy handlers had another candidate in mind but Biden stuck his party with Giggles the Wino by endorsing her right after he withdrew.

---

Polling has not been so accurate for a while. Biden was not favored in many polls, but also there was no clear victor.

I personally think Biden would have done better with the Harris strategy than Harris did, what I mean is saying nothing, just reminding people how much they dislike Trump. And I'm not saying he would have won, just that Democrats clearly thought he was their best shot at beating Trump, enough that the leadership didn't hold real primaries.

Clearly the majority of the country was not going to vote for 4 more years no matter what happened. Democrats did the same thing both parties always do, go with the incumbent, but it resulted in a complete disaster.

However, going back to the main point, this disaster was completely within the bounds of democracy. Nothing un-democratic about Biden running again unopposed. A joke of primaries did happen, and Biden won those. That was voters' chance to have a different candidate. And there is nothing un-democratic about him choosing to drop out. Or about Democrats pleading with him to drop out.

It is not ideal for democracy, but voters are ultimately to blame for the situation. They went with a guy who had barely made a public appearance, then turned away from him once they got a real good look at his mental faculties.

---

Wrong. They turned away from him once they were no longer able to hide his mental difficulties from the public. Deceiving the public to get their candidate elected is about as undemocratic as it can get.

---

We have to be specific about who we are talking about. I said voters turned away from him once they understood his decline. It's the same thing you are saying, but either dishonesty or a reading comprehension problem causes you to say "wrong" then immediately agree with me. Please just read what is there.

---

I'm not agreeing with you. You're saying that there was nothing "un-democratic" in what they did. But actively hiding a candidate's mental incapacitation from the public in order to get him elected was as about as un-democratic as it gets.

---

I see, you were just unclear. Your first they was the voters, your second they, Democrat leadership, in the same sentence. Again, not very specific.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist nutter like you, so I don't think there was anyone that prevented Biden from taking interviews. He simply didn't have a bunch of public appearances. He was the President. Had he wanted to do an interview, he could have. Nobody was stopping him.

Biden could not have survived an SNL visit. Not that Harris did all that well in hers. Biden could easily have looked like the Italian comedy spoof of him.

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Still another absolute scramble post.

This gal is either ….

Special needs
Under the age of 16
Over medicated

---

Youre a delusional, partisan hack, zealot. All you can do is offer up insults when facts you don't like are presented.

The fact is, Biden was polling well enough, to imo beat Trump again up until the second he made that disastrous TV appearance. The majority of the country was going to vote for him, again. Why? Because the majority of the country did not know the extent of his deterioration. Even most Republicans didn't, they just really hoped he was turning into a vegetable.

And how could they not know? Because there was no real primary. He was making very few public appearances, almost none where he fielded questions or did more than read a screen.

It's so simple.

---

Not true. If Biden had been polling well, then the June debate would not have been scheduled. The democracy handlers saw the writing on the walls and scheduled the debate in order to give them time to democratically install another candidate.

Personally I believe the democracy handlers had another candidate in mind but Biden stuck his party with Giggles the Wino by endorsing her right after he withdrew.

---

Polling has not been so accurate for a while. Biden was not favored in many polls, but also there was no clear victor.

I personally think Biden would have done better with the Harris strategy than Harris did, what I mean is saying nothing, just reminding people how much they dislike Trump. And I'm not saying he would have won, just that Democrats clearly thought he was their best shot at beating Trump, enough that the leadership didn't hold real primaries.

Clearly the majority of the country was not going to vote for 4 more years no matter what happened. Democrats did the same thing both parties always do, go with the incumbent, but it resulted in a complete disaster.

However, going back to the main point, this disaster was completely within the bounds of democracy. Nothing un-democratic about Biden running again unopposed. A joke of primaries did happen, and Biden won those. That was voters' chance to have a different candidate. And there is nothing un-democratic about him choosing to drop out. Or about Democrats pleading with him to drop out.

It is not ideal for democracy, but voters are ultimately to blame for the situation. They went with a guy who had barely made a public appearance, then turned away from him once they got a real good look at his mental faculties.

---

Wrong. They turned away from him once they were no longer able to hide his mental difficulties from the public. Deceiving the public to get their candidate elected is about as undemocratic as it can get.

---

We have to be specific about who we are talking about. I said voters turned away from him once they understood his decline. It's the same thing you are saying, but either dishonesty or a reading comprehension problem causes you to say "wrong" then immediately agree with me. Please just read what is there.

---

I'm not agreeing with you. You're saying that there was nothing "un-democratic" in what they did. But actively hiding a candidate's mental incapacitation from the public in order to get him elected was as about as un-democratic as it gets.

---

I see, you were just unclear. Your first they was the voters, your second they, Democrat leadership, in the same sentence. Again, not very specific.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist nutter like you, so I don't think there was anyone that prevented Biden from taking interviews. He simply didn't have a bunch of public appearances. He was the President. Had he wanted to do an interview, he could have. Nobody was stopping him.

---

The "they" included both democrat leadership AND voters. As others have already acknowledged, only complete idiots could not see that Biden was rapidly declining physically and cognitively. Most democrat voters likely knew that Biden wasn't fit to be president, but they were complicit in the whole charade that he was the "best Biden ever" because they were desperate to defeat Trump. The overarching point was that regardless of who "they" were, it was completely un-democratic to hide or downplay Biden's cognitive deficiencies in order to fool the rest of the idiot democrats to go along with him. So you're claim that there was nothing un-democratic about it is total lunacy.

I'm not surprised at all that you consider it being a "conspiracy nutter" to believe that they tried to hide Biden's unfitness for office from the public. You are generally pretty clueless and loony. Like how you blamed parents for exposing kids to drag queens because you know it's a bad thing for kids, but you don't blame the drag queens themselves, even though they were the ones bringing that very bad thing to the kids. Also, how you believe that saying "Black Lives Matter pushes a false narrative" is saying that black lives do not matter. I also remember the time when someone said "soy boy" and you thought it was a sleight against Asians. Just completely nonsensical and clueless takes.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Still another absolute scramble post.

This gal is either ….

Special needs
Under the age of 16
Over medicated

---

Youre a delusional, partisan hack, zealot. All you can do is offer up insults when facts you don't like are presented.

The fact is, Biden was polling well enough, to imo beat Trump again up until the second he made that disastrous TV appearance. The majority of the country was going to vote for him, again. Why? Because the majority of the country did not know the extent of his deterioration. Even most Republicans didn't, they just really hoped he was turning into a vegetable.

And how could they not know? Because there was no real primary. He was making very few public appearances, almost none where he fielded questions or did more than read a screen.

It's so simple.

---

Not true. If Biden had been polling well, then the June debate would not have been scheduled. The democracy handlers saw the writing on the walls and scheduled the debate in order to give them time to democratically install another candidate.

Personally I believe the democracy handlers had another candidate in mind but Biden stuck his party with Giggles the Wino by endorsing her right after he withdrew.

---

Polling has not been so accurate for a while. Biden was not favored in many polls, but also there was no clear victor.

I personally think Biden would have done better with the Harris strategy than Harris did, what I mean is saying nothing, just reminding people how much they dislike Trump. And I'm not saying he would have won, just that Democrats clearly thought he was their best shot at beating Trump, enough that the leadership didn't hold real primaries.

Clearly the majority of the country was not going to vote for 4 more years no matter what happened. Democrats did the same thing both parties always do, go with the incumbent, but it resulted in a complete disaster.

However, going back to the main point, this disaster was completely within the bounds of democracy. Nothing un-democratic about Biden running again unopposed. A joke of primaries did happen, and Biden won those. That was voters' chance to have a different candidate. And there is nothing un-democratic about him choosing to drop out. Or about Democrats pleading with him to drop out.

It is not ideal for democracy, but voters are ultimately to blame for the situation. They went with a guy who had barely made a public appearance, then turned away from him once they got a real good look at his mental faculties.

---

Wrong. They turned away from him once they were no longer able to hide his mental difficulties from the public. Deceiving the public to get their candidate elected is about as undemocratic as it can get.

---

We have to be specific about who we are talking about. I said voters turned away from him once they understood his decline. It's the same thing you are saying, but either dishonesty or a reading comprehension problem causes you to say "wrong" then immediately agree with me. Please just read what is there.

---

I'm not agreeing with you. You're saying that there was nothing "un-democratic" in what they did. But actively hiding a candidate's mental incapacitation from the public in order to get him elected was as about as un-democratic as it gets.

---

she's a democrat. It's in their playbook.
NEW DEFINITION
Democratic: (adj) relating to or supporting democrats

ORIGINAL DEFINITION
Democratic: (adj) relating to or supporting democracy

It's a subtle but important distinction

Geez, guys, are you stupid or something? All Porteroso is saying is that most people had no idea Biden was in mental decline because the trustworthy news outlets he chooses to get his opinions from told him that Biden was fine until he caught dementia the day before his final debate! How could you not respect such an honest answer?!?

Wangchung said:

---

Geez, guys, are you stupid or something? All Porteroso is saying is that most people had no idea Biden was in mental decline because the trustworthy news outlets he chooses to get his opinions from told him that Biden was fine until he caught dementia the day before his final debate! How could you not respect such an honest answer?!?

---

Wuhan Dementia Variant
EXTREMELY fast moving.

SORTOR: I took this flag from the man that was burning it in the street

TRUMP: Do you know who he is?

SORTOR: Oh yeah

TRUMP: So why don't you give it to Pam. Give it to the attorney general and we'll start prosecutions pic.twitter.com/sKqrmoJusg

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 8, 2025

Wangchung said:

---

Geez, guys, are you stupid or something? All Porteroso is saying is that most people had no idea Biden was in mental decline because the trustworthy news outlets he chooses to get his opinions from told him that Biden was fine until he caught dementia the day before his final debate! How could you not respect such an honest answer?!?

---

Dens replaced Biden because, on the date of the debate, he was badly trailing Trump by on the issues - immigration, economy, crime, etc….. If Biden had been ahead in the polling, the coverup on his mental health would have continued and there likely would have been no debates at all.

For all her flaws, Harris was a more competitive candidate than Biden. She saved them from a wave election loss.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Such a ridiculous grievance. Everyone who voted for Biden voted for Harris too.

---

Do you honestly believe that voters who didn't even give that woman 1% of their vote in the primaries, all of the sudden felt she was worthy of being a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

---

Well, that is what they voted for.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Such a ridiculous grievance. Everyone who voted for Biden voted for Harris too.

---

Do you honestly believe that voters who didn't even give that woman 1% of their vote in the primaries, all of the sudden felt she was worthy of being a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

---

Well, that is what they voted for.

---

The folks who run the DNC, at least.