No you didn't.
You're repeatedly asserted that clip is evidence of Biden admitting to perpetrate fraud.
I'm happy to accept that
Well the only other real option was Bernie Sanders who is two years older and utterly unelectable.It's not an attack on the man himself, such decline comes with age. But it does question, to my mind anyway, the rational of the DNC to propel Biden as candidate.
I did. I posted it without comment.
Where did he admit to 'the existence of election fraud'?
Thinking that the sentence you linked to in isolation is tantamount to an admission of perpetrating fraud is akin to thinking the Garda fraud squad do nothing but perpetrate fraud of the fire brigade are all arsonists.
You also seem surprised that 'Biden has openly admitted that he is Kamalas running mate.' He's not running solo, they are both each other's running mate on a joint ticket.
Well the only other real option was Bernie Sanders who is two years older
Yep, he's on the old side but Bernie's been off his nut for years. Biden is well liked and doesn't really have much baggage whereas Bernie is very divisive, deeply disliked on a personal level by many in his own party, way too left wing for middle America and would ensure a second term for Trump. Basically Biden is the best of a bad lot.Its not his age that is the issue, its his cognitive impairment. I'm no medical expert but it looks in decline to me. This is not a healthy state of affairs for someone taking up the office of President of US, imo.
Basically Biden is the best of a bad lot.
Yes it would. But I didn't think that that sentence I linked to in isolation is tantamount to an admission of perpetrating fraud. Clearly I conditioned that sentence with doubt by asking "what am I missing?"
You posted the clip with just 'Joe Biden voter fraud', you posted twice more before adding the 'what am I missing?' So you only conditioned it after being questioned.
Probably, but that is besides the point.
If Trump had said what Biden said the media reaction would be global. Biden gets a relatively free pass.
It feeds into Trumps narrative of fake news, increasing his support.
...when it has been established that we all agree that it was simply a Biden gaffe and what he intended to say was protection against voter fraud?
...on my view that had Trump made the same comment, intended or by way of a gaffe, that the media (and political) reaction would have resonated to a much greater degree?
eh, but whats your point? The only 'question' I was asked was an unrelated question from you about Trump and bomb squads.
It appears you genuinely believed that it contained an admission of the perpetration of fraud
I simply posted a YT video that clearly shows Biden admitting to the existence of election fraud, not just for this election, for the Obama campaign also. I would have considered that a pretty serious admission for a Presidential candidate. What am I missing?
Yes, I linked to a Trump YT channel and I am quite happy to accept any clarification of context.
I'm happy to accept that what Biden was talking about was in the context of protection against voter fraud, and I am happy to accept his Kamala remark was in the context of a Harris rally supporting her vice-Presidency.
It is evidence (clearly not conclusive) , but I also qualified it by asking "what am I missing?"
To which @EmmDee pointed out the broader context that what Biden was referring to was protection against voter fraud.
It appears you genuinely believed that it contained an admission of the perpetration of fraud
So to clarify, I, not for one second genuinely believed that it contained an admission of the perpetration of fraud. Instead, I made the post in the context that if Trump had made the same comment, by way of error or otherwise, then imo, the media and political reaction would have resonated more profoundly - I hope that clarifies the matter for you?
Perhaps you could comment, if you wish or not, on that view that had Trump made the same comment, intended or by way of a gaffe, that the media (and political) reaction would have resonated to a much greater degree?
I think you have missed the point for some reason.
Trump makes gaffes, odd statements, questionable claims and other statements that in a normal environment would get a large amount of coverage. But in my view, Trump could say virtually anything at this point and it would barely make a ripple. The sheer volume has meant that his "non-normal" statements have virtually zero media interest at this point.
He understood this a long time ago - his famous satatement that he could walk down 5th avenue and shoot someone and that it would have no effect was a pretty good prediction
Youi are attempting to apply context after the fact.
He has literally made thousands of similar statements.
What admission did he make? There is always voter fraud in every election everywhere. In the US it is inconsequential. Part of the reason what it is so inconsequential is the existence of measures to protect against it. How is that a gaff?if he had made the same comment as Biden about voter fraud it would be all over the media and political opponents scrambling the airwaves.
How is that a gaff?
No different to yourself.
I have applied the context in which the comment was made. You are applying your own perceived context. I have clarified the matter above, so hopefully you get it now?
I asked if he had made the same comment as Biden about voter fraud, intended or by way of a gaffe, that the media (and political) reaction would have resonated to a much greater degree?
Because I'm sure he intended to say "the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud [protection] organisation" in history, or words to that effect.
Clearly, it appears anyway, that this was a slip of the tongue seized upon by the Trump campaign.