It's the same for both parties.

The leader rises to to the top and you either support them or not.

No, it's not like that here. The parties hold what's called a "primary election" where voters get to choose who the presidential nominee shall be.

Except in 2024. The Democrats refused to hold a primary and they told voters who the nominee would be instead of asking them.

The Democrats did have primaries. RFK was one of the challengers although he withdrew before the primaries.

And Kamala is extremely far away from "the top." She was a candidate in the 2020 presidential primary election and she was the weakest candidate, who received the fewest votes.

As you say, that was 2020.

Once Biden withdrew from the race it was an open contest to be decided at the DNC. Harris Announced her campaign and was endorsed by Biden. The following day
a majority of Bidens pledged deligates pledged their support for Harris.

There was no democratic reason for her to be up against Trump in the first place.

Most of (if not all of) Biden delegates went to Harris. She could have been challenged but she wasn't.

I don't think anybody saw that coming but there is nothing out of place or undemocratic in any of the above.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

Except in 2024. The Democrats refused to hold a primary and they told voters who the nominee would be instead of asking them.

They held a primary. The incumbent won, as they usually do. Then the incumbent debated Trump, afterwhich the Democrats had to finally admit that their choice was senile. There was no time for a "do-over."


* SLMR 2.1a * To risk nothing is to risk everything.
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Does it seem like it was a good idea to let the elites choose your presidential nominee for you, as opposed to holding a primary like yo did in 2020?

If you're fine with it, then welcome to the Trump Train. We welcome you. If you're NOT fine with it, you need to complain to the DNC and tell them that you want to have a primary in 2028, if that's ok with George.

They did have a primary. They didn't really have time for a do-over primary. If they'd tried that, by the time the candidate was chosen, it would have been time for the general election and no time for that candidate to campaign.

I didn't know this. I was missing some facts. So they had a presidential primary this year, and Biden won it?

And then they told him to get lost?

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

Once Biden withdrew from the race it was an open contest to be decided
at the DNC. Harris Announced her campaign and was endorsed by Biden. The following day a majority of Bidens pledged deligates pledged their
support for Harris.

Thank you. I didn't know all these details. So it sounds like they had a primary, the voters chose Biden, but then since Biden backed out, the delegates made a decision FOR the voters (to go with Kamala) because there was no time to hold another primary.

I guess I should lighten up on the "they never had a primary" talk, because it's more accurate to say "they had a primary but the voters still didn't get to choose a candidate because Biden backed out of the race without sufficient notice."

Most of (if not all of) Biden delegates went to Harris. She could have been challenged but she wasn't.

Right, and if I was a Democrat voter, I'd be angry about it. Especially now that Kamala lost so badly.

I don't think anybody saw that coming but there is nothing out of place
or undemocratic in any of the above.

Maybe something is going over my head this time. I don't get how it's "democratic." The people voted for Biden, and delegates said "Nope you're going with Kamala, there's nothing you can do about it, and have a nice day."

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

Except in 2024. The Democrats refused to hold a primary and they told vo who the nominee would be instead of asking them.

They held a primary. The incumbent won, as they usually do. Then the incumbent debated Trump, afterwhich the Democrats had to finally admit that their choice was senile. There was no time for a "do-over."

Is that an acceptable solution though? Is there a policy that calls for this procedure in the event that a nominee backs out of the race?

Republicans wouldn't stand for it. I know I wouldn't. Crap like that would cause a rift between me and the Republican party. (Imagine them saying "Trump dropped out so the delegates have chosen Jeb Bush as a replacement!")

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Alan Ianson <=-

Except in 2024. The Democrats refused to hold a primary and they told voters who the nominee would be instead of asking them.

And Kamala is extremely far away from "the top." She was a candidate in the 2020 presidential primary election and she was the weakest
candidate, who received the fewest votes. There was no democratic
reason for her to be up against Trump in the first place.

Did you see the Babylon Bee headline - I'm paraphrasing from memory...

Candidate Doesn't Understand This 'Must Get Votes to be Selected' Process




... Dachshund kennel ad: Get a long little doggie.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com (1:105/7)

And Kamala is extremely far away from "the top." She was a candidate the 2020 presidential primary election and she was the weakest candidate, who received the fewest votes. There was no democratic reason for her to be up against Trump in the first place.

Did you see the Babylon Bee headline - I'm paraphrasing from memory...

Candidate Doesn't Understand This 'Must Get Votes to be Selected' Process

Ha! Now I seen it:

"I didn't need any votes to become Vice President, and I didn't need any votes to become the presidential nominee. Why do I suddenly need these 'vote' thingys?" LOL

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

"I didn't need any votes to become Vice President, and I didn't need any votes
to become the presidential nominee. Why do I suddenly need these 'vote' thingys?" LOL

You guys are too silly!

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Alan Ianson <=-

I guess I should lighten up on the "they never had a primary" talk, because it's more accurate to say "they had a primary but the voters
still didn't get to choose a candidate because Biden backed out of the race without sufficient notice."

The problem with the Elitists is that you're never sure if it's planned or just incomptence.

So the Dems have to run Biden as the candidate because NOT doing so would be admitting that he's not fit to run - which means he's not fit to be President either.

So then the debate happens and Biden's senility is there for all to see. Planned? Someone screwed up? I don't know.

Now they have to run the Ho because, again, NOT running her would be to admit that she's not fit to run - which means that she's not fit for VP (or acting President since Joe's obviously not fit).

But no one wanted da Ho in the first place. She was the Dems' DEI hire and Joe's insurance against assassination (because, really, NO ONE wanted the Ho in power).

It also didn't help with all the name calling on the Dems part during the election season.

Or was all this just a show? The Elitists knew that they couldn't succeed and that they overplayed their hand. So put all this circus out there to hide the operatives going to ground and planting their moles for the future when they would try again.

We will probably never know.

... If (Wife = "yes") then (MONEY = "Gone") else Single
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Ron L. wrote to Aaron Thomas <=-

Or was all this just a show? The Elitists knew that they couldn't
succeed and that they overplayed their hand. So put all this circus
out there to hide the operatives going to ground and planting their
moles for the future when they would try again.

Diversion? I've thought that too...

Maybe they were working on something behind the scenes to keep things
going regardless?




... Oklahoma: Our Tornadoes Go To F6!!
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com (1:105/7)

But no one wanted da Ho in the first place. She was the Dems' DEI hire and Joe's insurance against assassination (because, really, NO ONE
wanted the Ho in power).

It also didn't help with all the name calling on the Dems part during the election season.

Or was all this just a show? The Elitists knew that they couldn't
succeed and that they overplayed their hand. So put all this circus out there to hide the operatives going to ground and planting their moles
for the future when they would try again.

I was just talking with claw on sp00knet about all this. He and I both have noticed that the Dems sabotaged themselves. It goes far beyond "they didn't try very hard."

I strongly suspect that the globalists are planning another population-reducing attack on us, but for the sake of protecting the Democrat party, they have to carry out the attack with a Republican president in office, otherwise Dems would be blamed for it.

Hopefully I'm wrong about that, and hopefully it's just what you said: they're planting moles for their future.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

They did have a primary. They didn't really have time for a do-over primary. If they'd tried that, by the time the candidate was chosen, it would have been time for the general election and no time for that candidate to campaign.

I didn't know this. I was missing some facts. So they had a presidential primary this year, and Biden won it?

And then they told him to get lost?

Oh yeah. Because he was the incumbent, there was not much fanfair about it
but they did have one. Some guy I had not heard of finished a distant
second but, IIRC, with more votes than Kamala had when she ran in 2020.


* SLMR 2.1a * Not even with BOTH hands AND a flashlight!
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

They held a primary. The incumbent won, as they usually do. Then the incumbent debated Trump, afterwhich the Democrats had to finally admit that their choice was senile. There was no time for a "do-over."

Is that an acceptable solution though? Is there a policy that calls for this procedure in the event that a nominee backs out of the race?

It was the only solution. I do not think either party has a policy in
place for what happens if someone drops out. Google 1968 Democratic Presidential Primary (or Convention) and you can read about where this
happened before -- when an incumbent dropped out, and another candidate was assassinated, after the primaries had started. 2024 is not the first time votes cast for the sitting President were then pledged to the sitting VP.

Back in time, the Conventions didn't even guarantee that the primary/caucus winner would be the nominee. It has only been in very recent times... the
last 50-60 years, I think... that this has changed.

Republicans wouldn't stand for it. I know I wouldn't. Crap like that would cause a rift between me and the Republican party. (Imagine them saying "Trump dropped out so the delegates have chosen Jeb Bush as a replacement!")

Jeb Bush wasn't running and wasn't VP. Not sure who the GOP might have chosen... although we came close to finding out... but it likely would have been his running mate (Vance) or whoever finished second to Trump in the primaries.

Google 1952 Republican Presidential Primary (or Convention) to see a
previous instance of one Republican (Taft) actually winning more primary
votes (over 740,000 more, if my math is correct) but ultimately losing the nomination to another candidate (Eisenhower) who didn't even participate in every state's primary.


* SLMR 2.1a * If I got the wrong number, why did you answer the phone?
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

They did have a primary. They didn't really have time for a do-ove primary. If they'd tried that, by the time the candidate was chosen would have been time for the general election and no time for that candidate to campaign.

I didn't know this. I was missing some facts. So they had a presidential primary this year, and Biden won it?

And then they told him to get lost?

Oh yeah. Because he was the incumbent, there was not much fanfair about it but they did have one. Some guy I had not heard of finished a distant second but, IIRC, with more votes than Kamala had when she ran in 2020

So it sounds to me like the elite were trying to be fair with Kamala since she had been so loyal to them this whole time. She's a parasite that they can trust to maintain all the Biden side hussles (and more.)

It should serve as a warning to us all that out of all Democrats, we should trust Kamala the least. Anyone but her, when/if there's a choice. Because they tried like crazy to install her. We need to remember this if they try that puppet out again in 2028.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

that their choice was senile. There was no time for a "do-over."

Is that an acceptable solution though? Is there a policy that calls for procedure in the event that a nominee backs out of the race?

It was the only solution. I do not think either party has a policy in place for what happens if someone drops out. Google 1968 Democratic Presidential Primary (or Convention) and you can read about where this happened before -- when an incumbent dropped out, and another candidate was assassinated, after the primaries had started. 2024 is not the
first time votes cast for the sitting President were then pledged to the sitting VP.

It's not common, and it's not what we're used to. But since we're so much more suspicious of Democrats these days, it seemed like a suspicious event.

In reality this is a side-effect from them having Biden's old and corrupt ass in the white house. But as Ron always says: the elite are ignorant. This time they kept Kamala hiding too long, so they made their decision way too late for the media to "build" the public's trust of this new puppet.

Back in time, the Conventions didn't even guarantee that the primary/caucus winner would be the nominee. It has only been in very recent times... the last 50-60 years, I think... that this has changed.

If the Republicans would be more talkative about how undemocratic the Democrats are, we wouldn't have to sweat the elections so much.

Jeb Bush wasn't running and wasn't VP. Not sure who the GOP might have chosen... although we came close to finding out... but it likely would have been his running mate (Vance) or whoever finished second to Trump
in the primaries.

I was just using Jeb Bush as a worst-case scenario. Vance might be ok, but I still would have been mad as hell if it happened.

Google 1952 Republican Presidential Primary (or Convention) to see a previous instance of one Republican (Taft) actually winning more primary votes (over 740,000 more, if my math is correct) but ultimately losing
the nomination to another candidate (Eisenhower) who didn't even participate in every state's primary.

Lyndon Johnson - isn't he the one who said "We'll get those n-words voting Democrat?" If so, then him and Biden have quite a few things in common.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

Oh yeah. Because he was the incumbent, there was not much fanfair about it but they did have one. Some guy I had not heard of finished a distant
second but, IIRC, with more votes than Kamala had when she ran in 2020

So it sounds to me like the elite were trying to be fair with Kamala since she
had been so loyal to them this whole time. She's a parasite that they can trus
to maintain all the Biden side hussles (and more.)

It should serve as a warning to us all that out of all Democrats, we should trust Kamala the least. Anyone but her, when/if there's a choice. Because they
tried like crazy to install her. We need to remember this if they try that puppet out again in 2028.

Honestly, at that point, I think she was the only one they had left. My understanding is that all of the campaign money raised by the Biden/Harris campaign could legally only go to Harris, since she was on the ticket that raised it.

If that is true, trying out anyone else would have meant that whoever it
was would have to start over financially. At that late stage in the game,
that would have been game over.

Biden endorsing her was also something that made it almost impossible to go with anyone else. I honestly wonder if he didn't do that out of spite for
the party pulling him out of the race.

The mistake they made that they had time to correct was going with Biden to begin with. I don't buy that they didn't know he was in decline. They
just hoped they could keep him going enough until he could get elected again.

Once they made that mistake, they didn't have time to correct it later.


* SLMR 2.1a * Go softly....it's dark out there
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

In reality this is a side-effect from them having Biden's old and corrupt ass in the white house. But as Ron always says: the elite are ignorant. This time they kept Kamala hiding too long, so they made their decision way too late for
the media to "build" the public's trust of this new puppet.

This part is true... they really handicapped her campaign, and themselves,
by keeping her out of the public eye and away from interviewers as much as
they could.

Back in time, the Conventions didn't even guarantee that the primary/caucus winner would be the nominee. It has only been in very recent times... the last 50-60 years, I think... that this has changed.

If the Republicans would be more talkative about how undemocratic the Democrat
are, we wouldn't have to sweat the elections so much.

I don't think that would have done them much good. Staying on message... especially when it came to the economy... was what the Republicans did well this time.

Jeb Bush wasn't running and wasn't VP. Not sure who the GOP might have chosen... although we came close to finding out... but it likely would have been his running mate (Vance) or whoever finished second to Trump in the primaries.

I was just using Jeb Bush as a worst-case scenario. Vance might be ok, but I still would have been mad as hell if it happened.

To be blunt, the Democrats don't have any "MAGA-like" followers who think
that their "one guy" is the only guy. I think that is a good thing for
them and probably one thing that helped them in 2020.

Lyndon Johnson - isn't he the one who said "We'll get those n-words voting Democrat?" If so, then him and Biden have quite a few things in common.

No that quote was attributed to him by a questionable source and there was
no evidence he ever said it.


* SLMR 2.1a * STRING space corrupt? But I always use TAPE!
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

jimmylogan wrote to Dr. What <=-

Or was all this just a show? The Elitists knew that they couldn't
succeed and that they overplayed their hand. So put all this circus
out there to hide the operatives going to ground and planting their
moles for the future when they would try again.

Diversion? I've thought that too...

Maybe they were working on something behind the scenes to keep things going regardless?

I'm fairly certain that's what happened.

What I can see:
1. 18 million more votes were cast in 2020 than in the 3 elections before and in 2024. Where did they all go? Did they ever exist? But few people are talking about it.
2. Here in Michigan, a worthless Democrat got re-elected to the U.S. Senate. Strange because the state is mostly red. People who voted for Trump probably wouldn't vote for her. And she got a "2020 Biden Bump" at 4am.

And then there's the stuff that we can't see.


... You have mistaken me for someone who gives a damn
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-

I was just talking with claw on sp00knet about all this. He and I both have noticed that the Dems sabotaged themselves. It goes far beyond
"they didn't try very hard."

Agreed.

I strongly suspect that the globalists are planning another population-reducing attack on us, but for the sake of protecting the Democrat party, they have to carry out the attack with a Republican president in office, otherwise Dems would be blamed for it.

Oooo.... That's a dark thought. Something that I didn't think of.

The "flaw" in that is assuming that the people we can see are the people who are actually in charge. They aren't. The Bidens, Osamas, Pelosis, etc. are just patsies and will be used by their masters until they are useless, then discarded like the trash they are.

Hopefully I'm wrong about that, and hopefully it's just what you said: they're planting moles for their future.

This seems more plausable to me. A large attack on the public will cause a large backlash. As Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI found out in 1792.


... Insert disk 5 of 4 and press any key to continue
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Ron L. wrote to Aaron Thomas <=-

The "flaw" in that is assuming that the people we can see are the
people who are actually in charge. They aren't. The Bidens, Osamas, Pelosis, etc. are just patsies and will be used by their masters until they are useless, then discarded like the trash they are.

I was listening to a podcast about this very thing. And the history of the Illuminati - how it was an offshoot of the Masons. Very scary stuff...

Also heard a quote from Lincoln about it...






... The backup's not over 'til the FAT table sings.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com (1:105/7)

Honestly, at that point, I think she was the only one they had left. My understanding is that all of the campaign money raised by the
Biden/Harris campaign could legally only go to Harris, since she was on the ticket that raised it.

That makes sense.

Biden endorsing her was also something that made it almost impossible to go with anyone else. I honestly wonder if he didn't do that out of
spite for the party pulling him out of the race.

But it also seems like he'd have no choice but to endorse his VP. Endorsing anyone else would have been an admission of his administration's failure.

The mistake they made that they had time to correct was going with Biden to begin with. I don't buy that they didn't know he was in decline.
They just hoped they could keep him going enough until he could get elected again.

But did anyone ever admit that he's in decline? I know he looks funny wandering off ("I see dead people") but he doesn't seem any different from 2020 Joe Biden to me.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

Lyndon Johnson - isn't he the one who said "We'll get those n-words voti Democrat?" If so, then him and Biden have quite a few things in common.

No that quote was attributed to him by a questionable source and there
was no evidence he ever said it.

Maybe I'm crazy or dreaming, but I think I saw video footage of him saying those words.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

Democrat party, they have to carry out the attack with a Republican president in office, otherwise Dems would be blamed for it.

Oooo.... That's a dark thought. Something that I didn't think of.

The "flaw" in that is assuming that the people we can see are the people who are actually in charge. They aren't. The Bidens, Osamas, Pelosis, etc. are just patsies and will be used by their masters until they are useless, then discarded like the trash they are.

I believe that it's all coordinated, and that the world elite instructed Biden and Harris to sabotage her campaign. She had no trouble delivering her loser speech, and she didn't seem sad or anything. It seems like a false narrative that "Biden sabotaged Harris' campaign out of jealousy and spite."

That's just what they want us to believe. In reality, both Thing 1 and Thing 2 are just complying with orders.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

Biden endorsing her was also something that made it almost impossible to go with anyone else. I honestly wonder if he didn't do that out of spite for the party pulling him out of the race.

But it also seems like he'd have no choice but to endorse his VP. Endorsing anyone else would have been an admission of his administration's failure.

He could have endorsed no one. IIRC, he didn't immediately endorse Harris.
It would only really be an admission that there is a better choice for a Presidential candidate than his VP.

Also IIRC, but I don't remember anyone really jumping up and saying they
were interested during the period between when he quit and his endorsement.
There were a few who said they were not interested, though.

But did anyone ever admit that he's in decline? I know he looks funny wanderin
off ("I see dead people") but he doesn't seem any different from 2020 Joe Bide
to me.

Officially, they were very careful not to. Harris would not ever admit it during interview questions. However, some of those who were asking him to
step aside after the debate came *very* close. While some of those were celebrities (like Clooney), others were fellow Democrats (like Pelosi).

Clooney, for example, did not say "decline" specifically but did mention
that 2024 Joe was not the same person that ran in 2020 to the point where he was no longer capable to successfully run for office.


* SLMR 2.1a * "Bother", said Pooh, as he put on his asbestos suit.
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Lyndon Johnson - isn't he the one who said "We'll get those n-words vot
Democrat?" If so, then him and Biden have quite a few things in common.

No that quote was attributed to him by a questionable source and there was no evidence he ever said it.

Maybe I'm crazy or dreaming, but I think I saw video footage of him saying those words.

Could have been a deep fake. In the past year, I have seen "alternate
history" deep fakes where, instead of the USSR coming apart, someone like Reagan is shown conceding defeat to communism.

I posted some links in here in the past month or 6 weeks when this came up.
There is no evidence that he ever said that. If anything, evidence
suggests that he was more concerned that his actions had insured the Republicans would benefit for a long while afterwards.


* SLMR 2.1a * Fatal Database Error #10070: <Sysop> late for work
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Ron L. wrote to Aaron Thomas <=-

The "flaw" in that is assuming that the people we can see are the
people who are actually in charge. They aren't. The Bidens, Osamas, Pelosis, etc. are just patsies and will be used by their masters until they are useless, then discarded like the trash they are.

I was listening to a podcast about this very thing. And the history of the Illuminati - how it was an offshoot of the Masons. Very scary stuff...

Also heard a quote from Lincoln about it...






... The backup's not over 'til the FAT table sings.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com (1:105/7)