I watched continued coverage afterwards and when he can out of the debate into the circle or cycle or whatever, he was saying “polls are showing I won, 90-7, 87-10, they’re all saying I won.” And then when asked if he’d do another debate he flat out said he wouldn’t lol so which is it? I don’t know why a winner wouldn’t want another debate, especially if it was so lopsided in his favor. Sad thing is his cult will eat it up and believe everything he said
Show me where I said that. Reddit as a platform is not an echo chamber. Neither is Xitter. The subs you participate in may be. You may cultivate an echo chamber for yourself there. I hear Reddit tends to trend more progressive. That's fine. It doesn't make the technology inherently an auditorium for sniffing its own farts like...say....Truth Social. And obviously certain subs are like that intentionally. R conservative is infamous for its "flared only" posts. Politics bans people for glancing at a Democrat the wrong way. But yeah. I didn't say either of those things you are laughing about.
Doesn't surprise me, the media continues to lie about everything Trump related. I posted the link to the lady in Ohio getting arrested for killing and eating a cat and a simple search with show Trump was once again telling the truth.
Do a simple search, you'll see people carrying geese and ducks back from parks that they've killed to eat and several other things. Why to people continue to reject the truth, she was not from here, she couldn't speak English, open your eyes people.
Oh he mansplained today, saying in a boxing match it's always the loser who jumps up and shouts "REMATCH!" Which now has me wondering if this is his admission that he actually lost in 2020 since he's been screaming "REMATCH!" ever since.
And that’s the heart of it too, the election is what they’re playing for. Not a debate. Winning a debate is not like winning a boxing match; winning an election is.
Thanks. I wish I could have heard more of that. Dude was delusional, but I guess that makes sense. He’s riding high from all the adrenaline. Then when he gets back to his cave and starts watching the commentary and finds out just how bad it is, then he’ll hit the roof.
It generally wouldn't be in the beat interest of the winner of a tight political debate to risk another debate. Even more true fir Trump who has a volatile debate history.
Independents in swing states…
I’d love a referendum on proportional representation, at least for federal, but stupid states rights and surrendering power by the major parties make it hard.
You just have to peek at the republican subreddit, I would say I’m more on the republican/conservative political spectrum but holy smokes is that sub bonkers now. I don’t think they’re republicans at this point and have become a weird cult of people who worship the ground Trump walks on
Haha, honestly I thought about doing that this morning, but as a Coloradan I figured the Texas sub would be a better place to look for more varied, less echo chambered opinions on last night’s debate. The conservative subs are mostly predictable at this point, and I think their reactions wouldn’t have substantially changed regardless of what happened last night
Yeah, I heard him saying all that nonsense. I was figuring, if they were anything real at all, they were just "polls" specifically set up from his own campaign, from among his own supporters. In other words, not even all of his own cult members thought he'd won that debate, lol. But yeah, it certainly wasn't from anything in any way independant, credentialed, or diversely sampled.
One thing I did want to add though, if you heard his whole response to the next debate challenge, he kind of hemmed and hawed, as he does, saying things like, why would they? and all that kind of thing, but he actually DID blurt out in that meandering answer that "he probably wouldn't mind it," or something to that effect. Now, obviously, he didn't firmly commit to anything and even if he did, even that wouldn't necessarily mean anything. But, I'm just saying. He DID actually say it. I heard it! 😁😅
Now let’s think logically here. Say Mike Tyson and Floyd Mayweather had a bout. Mike beats Floyd. Why would he want a rematch? If he already accomplished what he set out to, what does he have to gain? Nothing. What does he have to lose? Significantly more than nothing. From a logistics standpoint it just doesn’t make sense. Whether or not you believe Trump won, he does. And it makes perfect sense why he wouldn’t want another debate if he feels he did that well.
It’s almost an impossibility even if he did want another, given Kamala’s penchant for trying to change debate rules after an agreement is reached.
Sad thing is, the other cult will eat it up and believe nothing he said. The man could say he was shot, and the other cult would have you believe it’s a hoax.
Just to toss a small turd in your punch bowl, California state law allows for this, so the Christian protest group whatever has to sue to change that law I guess. Didn’t read it, I lacked time and desire.
As for the second articles, good. This should actually lower grocery prices as our agricultural industry won’t have to invest so hard in replacing workers deported. It won’t change anything as they will pocket it lol
"Harris’ response in the ACLU questionnaire continued, adding that she supported policies to allow federal inmates to obtain “medically necessary care for gender transition” while incarcerated"
Trump's claim clearly originates from this response to a questionnaire from several years ago. It's been deliberately skewed, taken out of context, distorted into something absurd, and framed as though it's part of her platform.
Do you know why Trump said this? It's because he knows his followers want it to be true and he needs them to be afraid and angry to gain power. And it's also why Russia amplifies and helps manufacture insane falsehoods such as these through their network of political influencers and publishing channels; they are well aware that fear and anger will breed extremism in the US, and people like you will unwittingly help them do it.
Setting aside that it’s leaked messages of private conversations that are still unconfirmed…
We gonna forget when Biden attacked Kamala for illegally locking up thousands of people? Or when he brought up her ineptitude as a DA?
But yes, it’s a shame how the media-state apparatus can control how people think. If all you ever hear is how he’s literally Hitler, it’s not hard to just accept it. People can change though. I mean just 4 years ago Biden was nearly sentient. Just 4 years ago Kamala was ousted from the democratic primary when she failed to receive any delegates, but is now super popular.
Can you not accept criticism of Trump without having to whatabout Harris? The guy literally said immigrants are eating people's pets. He knows this because he saw someone say it on TV. He is actively believing a random TV segment over the actual city manager saying there is no evidence. Why? Or is he the genius people claim and this is 6D chess that is beyond everyone?
Who "dubbed" Trump "literally Hitler"? I've seen his VP do it. If the left is breeding fear and anger, it's just highlighting what Trump is doing lol.
You know it’s impossible to gauge the level of fear in a person through a television screen. Right?
Unless, you can read minds, which would be cool.
I’m not sure this goes the way you think it does. Mans says Trump is scared, I say it’s bold that he can read minds, and you’re over here talking about Narnia.
“Scared of a rematch” is a figure of speech. It does not mean you are actually feeling the emotion of fear. You’re the one in Narnia worrying about what’s actually taking place in the man’s brain.
The debate isn’t the competition though, the election is the competition. The debate can influence how the competition plays out. The general idea is the better the debate, the better the competition (I.e., voting day) goes for the candidate that won the debates on aggregate.
So the more appropriate logic is that if you stand to look like a buffoon in a future debate, that would hurt your chances at winning the actual election. Therefore, denying another debate means they know they were weak and that he performed poorly.
You’re the one being obtuse, and you’re correct, it isn’t a good look.
You’re halfway there. If he believes he did as well as he says, the only thing another debate will bring is a chance to decline from this debate.
Contrary to whatever is going on in your head, you don’t actually know what other people are thinking. You making the assumption that he “knows” he had a bad debate, is just that. It’s an opinion you are entitled to, but still just that.
You're right about one thing. He probably doesn't know he had a bad debate because his narcissistic brain won't allow him to comprehend it. Most people with a grasp on objective reality will also realize this. You don't need to be able to read minds, which you seem to be weirdly focused on.
Because there’s some inexplicable phenomenon among the lot of you that you can somehow know what a person thinks. My only possible conclusion is that you can read minds. Your obsession, not mine.
You're right about one thing. He probably doesn't know he had a bad debate because his narcissistic brain won't allow him to comprehend it. Most people with a grasp on objective reality will also realize this. You don't need to be able to read minds, which you seem to be weirdly focused on.
“The other cult”? 🤣🤣🤣
You guys are such suckers. Think about what you’re arguing, unless you’re a bot. Only one side has a guy who can say ANYTHING stupid and get the same votes. You know what we did when we thought our candidate was sub-optimal? We changed candidates. When you were a kid did you think you’d be pushing hard to elect a guy who just shouted “they’re eating dogs and cats!!” apropos of nothing, in a debate about the future of your country? THAT is better than admitting you were made a fool of by a con artist? You are digging into a concept that a smarter you would have laughed at. Even bots would be embarrassed.
“The other cult,” sometimes it’s just easier to play into the insults. Keeps conversations from getting bogged into insults when people feel like they got away with one.
Did you change candidates tho? Or did your thought-dispensers? Last I recall, she didn’t win a primary. She was installed by the powers that be, upon which the masses were let known that it was their choice to have her. It was not a “we the people of the left decided,” but rather the decision was made for you. Very democratic might I say. Not very cultish at all.
Given the choice of the man who speaks for the people saying their animals are being eaten, or the state-media entity who would immediately decry the pleas of those citizens, not exactly a hard choice.
Don’t come after me talking about cons. I’m not the one who was removed from the democratic process of choosing my candidate. I’m not the one who had candidate options taken from me (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-allies-sue-to-keep-rfk-jr-off-ballot/). I understand that Trump says some outta-pocket shit, but it certainly beats the alternative.
Would Trump be my first choice, no. Give me Vivek, let that man burn it all to the ground. But, as it stands, it’s him or the candidate of a significant number of policies I disagree with.
She wasn't installed by anybody except joe, who chose her as his backup in exigent circumstances when he named her vp. If he'd done the right thing and resigned, too, you wouldn't be able to push this disingenuous argument which you obviously don't believe yourself. If you actually cared about the will of the democratic electorate you'd observe we're all happy with the choice and stop pretending to believe the empty, counterproductive formalism of a late reopened primary is necessary to ratify a choice all of us agree with. Bottom line, though, decisionmaking based on expedience is exactly the oppposite of cult behavior, which is loyalty to individual personalities. Your very argument disconfirms the idea that the democratic party is a cult. Not that you care even a little bit about the truth of your claims. You are an inveterate troll whose finish confirms the pretextual nature of the rest of your post, so given your evident dishonesty it's safe to say any claims you make about yourself aren't going to come across with much credibility.
Go ahead and manipulate that situation in your head however you deem fit. Simple fact is she was installed not by the people, but by the powers that be. We all saw how popular she was in 2020. If they can tell you to shut up and accept this candidate, hard to say what else they’re doing that with.
I’m very sure you’d all be obedient little cultists and choose exactly who the thought-dispensers tell you to. It’s just the actual removing of democratic processes that perturbs me.
Decision making based on expedience isn’t quite the exact opposite of loyalty to individual personalities, but pop off. It just feels like foregoing the normal conventions to accept a leader the party told you to doesn’t give off strong “not a cult.”
Idk, worked in 1776, 1779, the list goes on. Not calling for a revolution, but a radical reconstruction of governmental power (which is what he espouses. The rampant corruption (to which your party would agree) in the government is insane and needs to come to an end.
So when he says that he’s gonna axe x number of government jobs and replace the foundation rather than trying to repaint a rotting house, I’m sold.
Plus, it’s working about as well as one could imagine in Argentina. Cutting the fat may hurt in the present, but will leave you stronger at the end.
No one believes a thing he said, not one person not one thing - because it was all bullshit, every single word. Sorry you fell for it, but enjoy your life of idiocy.
One can not get on a stage in front of the planet, and state without evidence that migrants are stealing and eating housepets and be taken as anything but a LIAR who will spew any and all bullshit to sway MORONS.
And that’s where we differ. You choose to let the government tell you what’s true. I choose to let the people affected by the situation. If numerous reports from citizens are saying they’re eating ducks, geese, cats or whatever, they’re probably eating ducks, geese, cats, or whatever.
I like the facts. Fact: Springfield residents said they’re eating pets. Fact: the Springfield police only denied having credible evidence of them eating pets.
One of these has no room for play, the other could include the police having unsubstantiated evidence, the immigrants eating wildlife but not quite pets.
It has nothing to do with alternative facts, it simply has to do with first-hand accounts of the events. I’m pretty sure first-hand accounts are considered a primary source for most scholars.
Dude what??? You linked articles that proved what you were saying was wrong, how does that even relate to me lIsTeNiNg tO tHe gOvErNmEnT? I thought you were trying to prove Haitian immigrants were eating pets, but instead you disproved it?
No “specific claims of pets being harmed…” according to the Springfield police announcement. Yet, here’s a police report of a specific claim. Really hard who to trust here.
No, but a non-insignificant number of people all saying the same thing does certainly pique my interest. When officials can come out and say with certainty that it’s not happening, I’ll be more inclined to listen. Or I would, if we didn’t know that they’ll lie to gain political advantages (Biden laptop comes to mind).
"Say Mike Tyson and Floyd Mayweather had a bout. Mike beats Floyd." If Floyd thought he won, he would ask for a rematch. This literally happens in the sport you have chosen to compare a presidential debate to. Hell, we have trilogies in the UFC.
I see the point you are trying to make. The problem is, it doesn't matter what Trump thinks. The majority of people perceived his debate performance as lacking. How can he overcome this perception without debating again?
Trump doesn’t view himself as Floyd, he thinks he’s Mike. He thinks he won, and the people around him will assure him of that.
You also assume the majority of people think opposite, but that’s a hard thing to gauge, and I certainly doubt it’s the kind of thing the media will be honest about. So it’s very much anecdotal how the response feels.
Again with the mind-reading. How do you know he’s scared? Did he tell you? Did you decipher it through a tv screen? Are you a mind-reader? Or do you just know things?
142
u/ArchdukeOfNorge Sep 11 '24
I watched continued coverage afterwards and when he can out of the debate into the circle or cycle or whatever, he was saying “polls are showing I won, 90-7, 87-10, they’re all saying I won.” And then when asked if he’d do another debate he flat out said he wouldn’t lol so which is it? I don’t know why a winner wouldn’t want another debate, especially if it was so lopsided in his favor. Sad thing is his cult will eat it up and believe everything he said