How embarrassing for Biden supporters.

Biden didn't start..............

Biden reversed a Trump admin decision and began funding UNRWA with American taxpayer money. 

Tampa Free Press; 

More than $1.3 billion in taxpayer funds from the Biden administration ended up helping groups that sponsored or committed terrorism.

Federal watchdog reports and other documents show former President Joe Biden’s aid programs funneled the money toward a network of terrorism in the Muslim world — largely by reversing Trump-era policies.

Biden took the terroist label off of Houthis and funded Yemen.

BIden gave Iran it's billions of frozen assests and less than a month later Iran helped HAMAS. 

Biden said Putin was a thug with no soul. Jong-un also a thug. 

As a result no serious peace talks ever take place, North Korea doubles it's missle tests, etc.

It is like night and day!

Funding is not starting and Trump is currently funding plenty of military gigs UNI and how could you even try to float such an absurd premise when military spending is over 3% of GDP and the highest spent by any developed country in the world?

Why debate a dead topic just to be partisan, it makes no sense?

No, but Biden funded Ukraine to the tune of over 100 billion $..............Biden didn't start the massacre of Israelis on Oct.7th,but he funds both sides...give Israel 10's of billions of $ and gives the Palestinians funding for what he calls humanitarian aid ...In fact Barack Obama's final actions in office before the inauguration of President Donald Trump, he released $221 million to the Palestinians against Republican opposition . not too sneaky..

As for the Canaanites, we are not going back to the Bronze Age to settle disputes..with Israelis,Hittites and the Philistines..

@SarasotaSlim

 Canaanites= any non Israeli of course so in current times it is defined groups in ye old 100x abridged Bible it meant most anyone not of the 10 tribes.

Why are you mad at military outlays, Trump spent a crap ton when in office before and Bush is the last president to start a fake fraud invasion and no president since Clinton has put the squeeze on military outlays.

Biden didnt run that deal, congress did and defense contractors did via lobbyists and PACS, just like they are today and tomorrow.

[Quote: Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers]@SarasotaSlim  Canaanites= any non Israeli of course so in current times it is defined groups in ye old 100x abridged Bible it meant most anyone not of the 10 tribes. Quote]

I see ,so you are a Canaanite.. Now I understand.

@SarasotaSlim

 And are you...

There you go again Obfuscating.................

you guys just keep kicking the can down the road, Canaanite goes back to the bronze age.  Let's just call it 1500BC new kingdom as the starting point but it doesn't matter anyway because there has never been a Palestinian state.  In my personal belief they came from the island of Crete, but opinions are like assholes.  

so many empires, the Babylonians, Persian, Romans.  It isn't Syria Palaestina, that's just a rename of Judaea

maybe Byzantine is a good starting point?  Any time before 1900 British mandate is the answer.  I wish someone with knowledge would lock horns with me on this instead of sending me to the box because of a different opinion 

What a deflection that has nothing to do with my post. You said Biden did not start war in Ukraine or Gaza and I replied he funded the attackers who did.

Uni... biden gave putin the ok for a minor incursion..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5168925-biden-staffer-campaign-age-concerns/amp/

Think of all the earnest attempts to have this conversation with the other sides.

Think of all the accusations of "making everything partisan" or being wild conspiracy theorist

Think of all the complaints about Elon "running the government" when Dr. Jill runs the cabinet meeting.

They knew.  We knew they knew.  Secretly those here knew that they knew and that's ok in my book.

But you don't get to tell us we're not seeing what we saw, even before 2020.

I agree biden was shot and he should have never ran for re-election.  He cost democrats a chance at winning by others not being able to have a primary. am sure democrats would have picked somebody else.

Now with that said jill biden if she was running the meetings, she didnt do anything to try and destroy our whole system of govt unlike what musk is doing.  Musk is getting rid of everything, except for all the govt contracts he has.  No conflict of interest there thou

musk said he was going to become the first trillionaire and now we know how

@cd329

 He cost democrats a chance at winning by others not being able to have a primary. am sure democrats would have picked somebody else.

Why do you think this?  At no time during 2023 or 2024 did anyone out-poll Harris, when Biden was not considered in the poll.

One poll very early in January, Whitmer was decent in one poll.

But Harris always polled as the front runner and it was not close, usually well in the double digits.

I do not think the folks realized how poor of a candidate Harris was until it was too late.

Even though she did poorly in 2020, people still seemed poised to nominate her.

I agree, they should have had Biden drop out earlier and had a primary.  

But I think it was going to be very, very hard to beat Harris -- even though the Democrats had many better candidates to run.  Newsom, Obama, Clinton, Sanders, Whitmer, Phillips -- Harris was out-polling them all.

 If Harris was the best they got they'll be done for a while.

 Still hard to believe so many were duped into voting for Dementia Joe.

@THEMUGG

 It is NOT that she was the best they had; it is that they SO MUCH wanted her.  

She was -- and has always been -- promoted as who she is and not what she has done.

Drawing from another thread, that's what CD misses about MAGA.  

It's less about Trump and more about breaking away from business as usual.  Independents have tried but can't get off the ground where Trump can.

Tying back to this thread the democrats wanted Bernie but business as usual wanted Hillary (starting to see why) so we shouldn't be surprised when they anointed Biden then Harris rather then let people choose.

@Raiders22

 @unplucked_gem

 But why? So they could run biz from behind the scenes like under Biden? Harris did nothing to distinguish herself as any kind of a leader, either before or after her anointment. Libs don't appear to be looking for a leader, just someone they can control while they try to run things by committee.

@THEMUGG

 To make a very, very long story about primaries somewhat short, a lot of the delegates had decided they would pledge their votes for Harris after Biden dropped out.

Technically, in a primary you are voting for delegates to elect a candidate.  So, once those that were already pledged to Biden said they were opting for Harris, the party elites decided it was easier to forego another 'primary' and just select Harris.  It is not an unprecedented thing for a candidate that did not win the folk's vote to get the nomination from the delegates.

Then you are not having to spend as much capital and time on a primary and can concentrate on running against Trump.

The party also knows -- as I always say -- that their voters will align and unite behind their candidate in the end.

They also know that the folks really, really 'want' to elect a female candidate.  This is a big rallying cry for a portion of the party.  The problem is that that portion already has the highest turnout.

There is also the issue where Harris, and the party, would not have to formulate another platform to run on.  The economy was recovering and the inflation had eased up.  So, they were counting on that being enough to simply run Harris.

The issue was that they were counting on people to vote AGAINST Trump and not FOR Harris, and that was a huge mistake.

You can also add in the factor that Harris would just be glad to be there and if she won would have done whatever was 'asked' of her and been another puppet like Biden had been.

They could have gone to a convention to see what shook out.  

I think Biden, Whitmer, Newsom, Sanders, Clinton, Phillips, or even Warren would have fared better and they should really be the ones the most upset.

But, I think they failed to take into account that Harris did not have a message to convert any potential 'fence-sitters' and gather some swing states.

This became evident when they decided to not let her go on podcasts and even do interviews early on.

They could have prepped her well enough to do this.  They did a great job on her for the debate I thought.

If you really think about it -- the folks voted for Harris, in a sense.  They voted for Biden and Harris -- knowing that if anything were to happen to Biden that Harris would be the president.

So, in a sense you can say they lost the 2024 election in 2020.  They never should have had Harris on the ticket to start with.  Whether you look at it as a DEI situation or not is not the bottom line.

The bottom line is they should have made sure Biden was a one-term guy with a solid VP to step up.  But it now seems they just wanted someone to 'control' and follow their agenda.  

They took their voters for granted and should not have.

@Raiders22

  My question was somewhat rhetorical, but my point was that the dems just have no one to offer that Americans can get behind. I understand that many just vote "party" over anything else, regardless of the candidate.......& many will choose to vote against an individual they don't like, regardless of the party. I try to make a decision based on who is going to be best for the job. I've said many times here that I'm no fan of Trump, but given the choices of Hillary, Biden, & Harris or Trump, I had little choice.

 I agree about the libs losing this election in 2020, adding that Biden threw a wrench into the works because he thought the DNC really liked him & he thought he could do it again. He was played hard.

@THEMUGG

 I figured that.  But still good to examine it.

I think more people really want to and 'think' they vote FOR a candidate.

I think there were some good candidates that even some middle-leaning folks would have got behind in 2020 and 2024.

But for sure some of them changed parties after 2020.

But they for SURE had better than Biden or Harris to run.

I fault Jill for that a lot also.  She was closest to Biden and knew he was deteriorating before anyone else.  

She should have made a point of telling them he was only a one-term guy.  But I think she decided she liked being First Lady more than her husband's legacy in the end.

@THEMUGG

 #393

I think in this instance it's simplest explanation is winning through identity politics.

They thought (wrongly) running a black female while their media machine called Trump a nazi and Trump supporters racists would guilt enough in the middle to make the difference.

I am unconvinced of an end game beyond winning, I think they'd try and figure it out afterwards (could very well be wrong on this).

@Raiders22

"The party also knows -- as I always say -- that their voters will align and unite behind their candidate in the end"

Exactly.  Left's going to go left and right's going to go right so how to get that middle.

@THEMUGG

 #295

Astounding right?  All she had to do was literally anything as Vice and she'd have been in.  So from the outside its:

1) truly they didn't believe he was declined 

2) they didn't want to address any of the issues

3) they got comfortable with voting results and support in the courts.

I think he's trash but I'd be curious if they had run Newsom what would've happened.

@unplucked_gem

 Mostly.  

But Republicans will stay home more if they do not like the candidate.  Like they did with Romney or McCain.  Neither of those were good candidates.

Even poor candidates like H. Clinton, Biden and Harris still got great turnout.

You are correct that the middle needs some swaying.  My contention is that the 'middle' is really far smaller than folks think.

Then if you run a middle-ground candidate, the worry would be if you isolate your extremists voters will they stay home.