[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

At least now he’s got proof that he has one black friend

Brilliant. Post of the year.

[Savage Clone]

I lifted the line from a friend’s Instagram, so I can’t take credit but it was definitely worth spreading around.

[h8kurdt]

Trump's refusing to do the second debate. Puuuusssyyyyyy

[Bytor Peltor]

 

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

Trump's refusing to do the second debate. Puuuusssyyyyyy

the world already knows he’s deranged so what does it matter

[tw2113]

I wonder if it's because of the virtual detail, or he doesn't want a second debate period.

[LifeDistortion]

He needs a platform he can control, something his audience can drink up like spiked Kool-Aid.

[!@#$%!]

so, some yahoos were arrested by the fbi for plotting to kidnap the governor of michigan. i wonder how soon till trump calls them “great people” and issues a pardon, like he does with fraudsters and war criminals.

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

so, some yahoos were arrested by the fbi for plotting to kidnap the governor of michigan. i wonder how soon till trump calls them “great people” and issues a pardon, like he does with fraudsters and war criminals.

Trump complained Gretchen Whitmer did not "thank him" (because basically we all should be in awe of him and thank him for existing, you follow). Imagine what's gonna happen in November as the mail-in ballots start showing Biden is winning the presidency and Apocalypse Fuckface begins tweeting to the MAGAs to take over the state capitols. With GUNS and shit.

[The Soup Nazi]

From Rolling Stone:

New Bonkers Interview: Trump Says He Beat Biden in Second Debate, an Event That Has Yet to Happen

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

Shit, even Brexiteer par excellence Boris is now crying like a little bitch for a globally coordinated response

Sheer coincidence from Zakaria's Global Briefing:

Should the UK Be Rooting for Biden?

Despite President Trump’s support for Brexit—and the notion that a US free-trade deal is key to Britain’s post-EU future—the Financial Times’ Gideon Rachman writes that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s UK might be better off with the internationalist Joe Biden in the White House.

Under a reelected Trump, the US would be less tolerant of disagreements over issues like “Iran, Israel, China, and climate change” than it would be under Biden, Rachman writes, and it could take a “coercive” approach. “Those who imagine that Mr Trump would never deploy these tactics against the British are kidding themselves. This is an administration that has not hesitated to threaten tariffs or sanctions on both Japan and Germany—which are, in strategic terms, more important allies than the UK.” Plus, that trade deal may be hard to come by, as issues like discrepant food standards have arisen.

“Radicalised by victory, the US president and his acolytes would launch a new assault on the liberal world order,” Rachman writes. “Those Tories who complained that Brussels was turning the UK into a ‘vassal state’ would discover a more pressing threat—from Washington.”

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

From Rolling Stone:

New Bonkers Interview: Trump Says He Beat Biden in Second Debate, an Event That Has Yet to Happen

Oof. Sure Bytor and co will call him out on that and refer to him as sleepy Trump (Nono that's not when you trump whilst in bed asleep and are woken up by the smell) from now on.

[demonrail666]

What Rolling Stone reports him saying:

“But I beat him in the first debate. At the second debate, we had a never-Trumper as a host, but that’s OK because I beat [Biden] in the second debate also.”

What he actually said, according to the official transcript:

"But I beat him in the first debate. At the second debate we have a never Trumper as a host, but that's OK because I'd beat him in the second debate also."

You can hear for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Po84VhQjUA

01:14-01:24

"I", "I'd". You decide, but sounded pretty clear to me.

[_slavo_]

It's funny how Trump campaign representative issues a statement how Trump "won the debate"


Does "screamed louder than opponent and interrupted everyone" count as "won the debate" now?

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

What Rolling Stone reports him saying:

“But I beat him in the first debate. At the second debate, we had a never-Trumper as a host, but that’s OK because I beat [Biden] in the second debate also.”

What he actually said, according to the official transcript:

"But I beat him in the first debate. At the second debate we have a never Trumper as a host, but that's OK because I'd beat him in the second debate also."

You can hear for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Po84VhQjUA

01:14-01:24

"I", "I'd". You decide, but sounded pretty clear to me.

If Rolling Stone fucked up, it's highly lamentable because (in addition to being weak reporting) it only provides fodder for the "SEE, FAKE NEWS!!! TRIPLE EXCLAMATION POINT!!!" crowd.

Far more lamentable, however, is that you want this waste of oxygen to remain in power.

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by _slavo_

It's funny how Trump campaign representative issues a statement how Trump "won the debate"

Does "screamed louder than opponent and interrupted everyone" count as "won the debate" now?

A pretty "old" column (October 1) related to your post (it's like dog years at warp speed with this shit):

I thought Trump was winning the debate. But then I turned off the sound.

If you want to understand who won this week’s presidential debate, keep in mind a moment from our political past that I call “Stahl’s Epiphany.” During the 1984 presidential campaign, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl put together a tough, unsparing critique of Ronald Reagan, focusing on the disjuncture between Reagan’s image and his policies. There were clips of Reagan celebrating Paralympic athletes and inaugurating a new retirement home, while Stahl revealed that his administration had actually tried to cut funding for disabled people and subsidized housing.

It aired as an almost six-minute segment on the evening news, and Stahl was sure that her White House contacts would be livid. Instead, she got a call from one of Reagan’s aides, Richard Darman, saying, “What a great story! We loved it.” When Stahl expressed puzzlement, Darman explained, “Nobody heard what you said. … You guys in Televisionland haven’t figured it out, have you? When the pictures are powerful and emotional, they override if not completely drown out the sound. Lesley, I mean it, nobody heard you.”

At first, as I was watching the Tuesday debate, I thought President Trump was winning. He was in command, making forceful jabs, controlling the agenda and putting Democratic nominee Joe Biden on the defensive. Biden was rarely able to make his points clearly without interruption. But then I thought of “Stahl’s Epiphany” and re-watched parts of the debate with the sound turned off. It was utterly revealing. Shorn of the words, the images revealed a stark contrast. On the one hand, you saw an elderly gentleman, somewhat faded, occasionally stumbling but showing a big smile and a warm heart. On the other side, you saw a fourth-grade bully, a mean-spirited, snarling man, emotionally out of control. He scowled and smirked his way through the entire 90-minute debate.

I had always thought that “Stahl’s Epiphany” was a sign of television’s weakness. But this debate made me recognize its strength. Cutting through all the noise, it gave the American people a window into the characters of the two men. It highlighted Biden’s greatest strengths and Trump’s gigantic weakness. Forget policies for a moment. Trump is a man of bad character, who has abused people, institutions and norms, always to help himself. And that’s exactly what the images from the debate conveyed.

The new revelations from his tax returns only confirm what we have always known about him. As Drew Harwell reported in 2016, the one time Trump ran a publicly traded company, he fleeced the shareholders for his own benefit. He loaded almost $2 billion of personal debts on the company and paid himself tens of millions of dollars, while bankrupting the company and wiping out the shareholders. It might all be legal, but very few CEOs of public companies behave like this. In a complex, civilized society, we cannot treat every conceivable unethical or unsavory action as illegal. Above and beyond laws, there have to be norms.

Democracy cannot function without some adherence to norms. You cannot hold presidential debates if one of the two sides simply refuses to abide by the rules, interrupting constantly, heckling his opponent and contesting everything he says. Trump also does something novel and far more damaging. He lies in a way that no previous candidate has ever done, utterly unconstrained by facts. Republicans have recognized that repealing Obamacare with nothing to replace it is politically unpopular, yet they cannot agree on an alternative. For Trump this poses no problem. He simply asserts that he has an alternative.

Trump has broken so many norms that it is difficult to tabulate them. Far from accepting the opposing party as legitimate, he called for his opponent in the 2016 race to be jailed. He has refused to separate himself from his business interests and, while president, has allowed foreign governments to shower him and his family with gifts in the form of trademarks and hotel revenue. White House officials have openly promoted the business interests of Trump and his family. He has used his power to reward and threaten companies — and, most worrying, to intimidate the free press. At the direction of the White House, several federal agencies have been working to strike at Twitter after the platform’s decision to flag some of his most egregiously false tweets. The use of the awesome powers of the state against political opponents is one of the most troubling signs of authoritarianism.

By every indication, Trump is well behind in this election. We are watching him under pressure. And if things continue to look bleak for him, he will get more desperate, more unethical and more vicious. Let’s hope American democracy can withstand the assault.

[Bytor Peltor]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

What Rolling Stone reports him saying:

“But I beat him in the first debate. At the second debate, we had a never-Trumper as a host, but that’s OK because I beat [Biden] in the second debate also.”

What he actually said, according to the official transcript:

"But I beat him in the first debate. At the second debate we have a never Trumper as a host, but that's OK because I'd beat him in the second debate also."

You can hear for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Po84VhQjUA

01:14-01:24

"I", "I'd". You decide, but sounded pretty clear to me.

Such a simple and reasonable explanation!




Biden the coward, hiding behind a virus (allowing the media to run his campaign), has been a segregationist for much of his life......and Kamala Harris believes the women who have come forward alleging that former Vice President Joe Biden touched them without their consent.

This past Thursday, the same Joe Biden stated: ”They'll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over.”

With that statement, how can we trust him to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States when he won’t even tell us how he will treat one of our three branches of government, and the checks and balances within it? His statement is reminiscent of Vomit Pelosi’s comment on the Obama Care act, ‘We have to pass the bill before you can see what's in it.’

Speaking of Vomit......her comments about the 25th amendment (doubt she has even read it).

“Mrs. Pelosi wants to distance this 25th Amendment ploy from her party’s years-long effort to overturn the 2016 election results, but even the press corps was skeptical. Mrs. Pelosi said later in her presentation that “any of us who is under medication of that seriousness”—referring to President Trump’s coronavirus treatment—“is in an altered state.”

What does Section 4 of the 25th Amendment say, “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide,” Let’s break it down, the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments are not going to move forward on this, so she needs another “body,” the problem is,

THERE IS NO OTHER BODY, because there is no law that created one!

So let’s look at what a Biden/Harris ticket wants to do.

They want to change the senate rules to no longer require 60 votes to take up bills. 60 votes are required to begin debate; this is called the filibuster. Do away with the filibuster, it will take just 50 votes plus the V.P to break a tie. Why is this so important?

They want to pack the supreme court, repeal the tax cuts, raise new taxes on business, wealth, savings, retirement (401ks IRAs and do away with the tax advantage they have)

The public option, this would take them a couple of years, but it would be a complete takeover and be a government healthcare system with no choice. Free college, taxpayer funded abortion right up to and after birth.
Harris was a co-sponsor of the 2019 Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), which prohibits state laws banning post-viability abortions that do not make exceptions if a woman’s health and life are at risk.

Abolish ICE and re-imagine police departments. Provide free health care for illegal aliens. They want to get rid of the “Right to work.”

What is it?

It affirms the right of every American to work for a living without being compelled to belong to a union. Compulsory unionism in any form–“union shop,” “closed shop,” or “agency shop” –is a contradiction of the Right To Work principle and the fundamental human right of freedom that the principle represents. It also prevents federal unions to negotiate for federal wages.

A Democrat, FDR opposed public employee (government) unions.

They want to get rid of both natural gas and oil fueled power plants. They want to take 2 million homes out of about 139 million homes and retrofit for clean air, who’s homes do you think they will choose?

They want Net0 agriculture, telling a farmer he can’t use his tractor because it puts out carbon emissions, unless of course its an electric tractor. They want to make states out of Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico. They can do all this with just 50 votes if they win back the senate and the presidency.

Don’t believe me: Democratic Task Forces Deliver Biden A Blueprint For A Progressive Presidency
(check out link of 110 page document of all they have agreed to)

Still don’t believe: 2020 Democratic Party Platform
(The proposed platform was considered by the 2020 Platform Committee at its meeting on July 27, 2020, and is recommended for approval by the delegates)

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by _slavo_

It's funny how Trump campaign representative issues a statement how Trump "won the debate"

It's enough to make you wonder if campaigners might be biased towards the candidate they're campaigning for.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

It's enough to make you wonder if campaigners might be biased towards the candidate they're campaigning for.

but why are you now a trump campaigner man?

i understood when you though trump was gonna win—ok, that’s a prediction. but from that to you wanting him to win?

i understood your tory vote given the claim that “europe rules by austerity” (up to that point, they had).

but i have no idea why you would want trump to win.

[demonrail666]

You ask that like I'm some kind of political anomaly. There are literally millions of people who would've once considered themselves 'of the left' but ditched so-called Leftist/Liberal parties, whether it's for Trump, Boris, whoever, simply because they find them more in tune with their sense of reality than most of those who currently advertise themselves as Leftists or Liberals. That's less an endorsement of Trump, et al, and more a question about how Left/Liberal politics has managed to alienate so many of what was once its base.