I don't see it that way. Let's discuss the gaffe deeper, as I said it requires significantly more explanation.

>Biden is visibly affected by senility.

I'm not a doctor and haven't diagnosed him this way. I don't believe this is public knowledge that he has been diagnosed as such. What makes you believe he has dementia? What kind? This statement scares me to no end, you believe the person in charge of the largest nuclear weapon arsenal has dementia? That would need to be fixed asap if true. I don't believe it to be true.

>How could you think it's anything but a gaffe?

So lets get into it. If it's a gaffe, what's the gaffe. It would be egregious to give him the benefit of the doubt to the point where you don't even investigate. The gaffe can go either way, he could have just meant that they have an organization to get people engaged and voting. That would be way past the line and not appropriate to jump there.

The other way the gaffe can be seen. There is a voting fraud organization and plan and the gaffe is that he accidentally admitted to it. He shouldn't have admitted to it. I could believe this level of gaffe, it's not unreasonable. It unfortunately admits to voted fraud.

>Do you really think that if he was aware of systematic voter fraud strategy being developed that he would actually give a speech about it?

He wasn't giving a speech about it. It was an accidental admission. Slip of the tongue, freudian slip, whatever you would like to call it. It has nothing to do with dementia. He was under immense pressure running an election during a pandemic. The hallmark of a freudian slip is that they generate out of thought supressions. He knew he can't admit to voting fraud, and was trying to suppress the thought.

Now here's the thing. It's simple to solve this problem. Elections have far more to do with appearance. Democrats having heard Biden admit to voting fraud had to come out and be above board. The entire process needed to be beyond question. No drama, no nothing. They needed to make sure the process was transparent as possible. Give the republicans nothing that might question the legitimacy of the election.

Unfortunately they didnt do that. They hated trump so much they needed him to lose.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/technology/michigan-elect...

Nytimes is obviously biased, but stuff like this however is the opposite of transparent. Literally it's opaque. There's no simple reason, there's no reason at all to block the windows.

Add on top of that they threw out multiple republican observers for various reasons. Most republican observers were denied access.

Nobody will ever know if the election was stolen. As I said above, the republicans made it very clear they believe the election was stolen by their actions.

It's just that right, it sure looks like the election was stolen.