Sure, Trump is a liar. Trump is a coward. Trump is a crook. But apart from that....

@whowasthatmaskedman

And yet the Harris campaign raised about 3x as much as the Trump campaign.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-vs-harris-fundraising-race-harris-outraised-trump-3-to-1-with-last-pre-election-report/

Something about lipstick and a pig...? 🤔

@Thinkerbell But the Harris campaign wasnt the Harris campaign until a month before the election. It was the Biden campaign. That whole strategy was designed to fail. Remember that Biden won on the strategu of being a one term President. But the party convinced him to run for two. Then pulled the rug out. There is the money pulling the strings..
Even so, with America you are still electing the new captain of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg..😷

@whowasthatmaskedman

Kamala had a little over 3 months; Biden pulled out of the race on July 21, 2024.

And he didn't say he would be a 1-term president, but a "transitional" one. I think his (or his handlers') plan was to resign at some point during his second term, making Kamala the first woman of color US president in history. He and his handlers surely knew about his cognitive decline and his prostate cancer making it unlikely that he could function for a full second term.

Instead, his debate performance on June 27 was so bad that he was forced out by the Democrats' Establishment, who thought that even airhead Kamala had a better chance of winning. As Carville said, "Winning is everything."

And no, I don't think the big Democrat donors spent all that money on a grand conspiracy to elect Trump.

@Thinkerbell OK. Here is the actual history as reported..Going back to 2019...https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4718993-did-biden-break-his-one-term-pledge/

@whowasthatmaskedman

According to your link:

"So Biden never explicitly made a one-term promise during the campaign, but he certainly implied it with the language of “transition.” "

And according to a source in your link, this was the nature of Biden's "pledge":

"While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/11/biden-single-term-082129

Biden also announced his running mate before he had even secured the nomination. This of course was part of a deal he made with Cliburn to rescue his floundering primary campaign in 2020. His private "pledge" was most likely to bolster support for the 2020 primaries from those who had (justified) doubts about him.

@Thinkerbell Yes.. I read that as a "strong hint" but not a promise..However, having decided (unwisely in my view) to run a second time, the worst thing he could do was to pull out so late and leave her without a record or a base. She should have been given an apprenticeship (forgive the term) in his term and had her own spotlight. Instead she was thrown to the Republican wolves to gut before she had a chance..😷

@whowasthatmaskedman

Five comments back you said, "But the party convinced him to run for two."

If so, that was only two months into Biden's presidency (i.e., March, 2021).

Again, according to your link:

"By March 2021, Biden was saying something entirely different. “My plan is to run for reelection. That’s my expectation,” he said shortly after he was inaugurated."

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4718993-did-biden-break-his-one-term-pledge/

@Thinkerbell Yes to both. And politicians and their parties flip flopping is an olympic sport. I can argue my opinions. In that case, no person over 70 should be allowed to remain President. The job is too big and too important to the whole nation. But my opinions arent what dictates policy. That does cut back to my other point, that the Democrats did assist in their own failure as a result of the decisions pushed at them by the big donors to the party..😷

@Thinkerbell The election was stolen! It was rigged! 🤣

@whowasthatmaskedman @FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays

@Thinkerbell Exactly.. If its a two horse race and you own both horses, the one with the better odds is the one you bet on..😷

@whowasthatmaskedman

...which leaves unanswered the question of why would they bet 3x the money on the horse they wished would lose?

@Thinkerbell This is the same argument as why did Donald get so many votes...It was because so many people stayed home and didnt vote for Biden.. In the same way Biden got more money, because Trump got less.. The bottom line is that while Trump was a horrible President first time out, after 4 years of a Biden in decline who couldnt pull off the miracle of the loaves and fishes Americans always expect, the complete Keystone cops act of the Democrats running Biden, then switching left American voters (bless their stupid, racist, sexist hearts) with a "devil you know" or female, coloured devil you dont choice.. And they got what they failed to vote against.. But in the end it wont make much difference. And under the current administration the death of the US economy will be quick at least..😷

@whowasthatmaskedman

"...or female, coloured devil you dont [know]..."

But they knew her all too well... for example, as a do-nothing border czar, as a mouther of vapid word salads, or as an incompetent international diplomat, even when asked a friendly question by an NPR correspondent:

[media=https://youtu.be/LnMXh4GynP8]

That, in addition to the Biden charade, is why many stayed home.

And yet, the owners of both horses bet 3x as much on her.

And as for the quick death of the US economy, why would the owners of both horses want that? Are they planning to short-sell the US economy on the Hang Seng exchange and make a quick bundle of HK$...? 🤔

@Thinkerbell Exactly.. Look what the Democrats put up....So you get it..😷

@whowasthatmaskedman

Actually, I think the big-donor Democrats put 3x the money on Kamala because they wanted her to win, in order to continue the easily-controllable figurehead presidency begun under Biden. Unfortunately for them, she was so impossibly bad that they could not overstep the corner that events and that they themselves had painted themselves into.

@Thinkerbell I think donors certainly got behind her . But the media did a real hatchet job on her from day one. There was an expectation then that she would be the next nominee..😷

@wishforthenight

[media=https://youtu.be/kaH8s3zd7CE]

@whowasthatmaskedman

"But the media did a real hatchet job on her from day one."

The media's "hatchet job" on Harris was to merely portray her in a more realistic light than they had done with Biden. They were greatly embarrassed by CNN's Jake Tapper's revelations of their years of systematically covering up for old Joe and his mental decline.

That still didn't stop CBS from selectively editing their 60 Minutes program, aired on October 7, 2024, to make Harris's word salads look as good as CBS could possibly make them, in the interests of "succinctness."

https://nypost.com/2025/02/05/media/cbs-releases-unedited-video-of-60-minutes-interview-with-kamala-harris/

Trump sued CBS over this, and their parent company, Paramount, settled for $16 million.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paramount-trump-60-minutes-lawsuit-settlement/