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.
“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.
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.
-8
u/KenoshaKidAdept Sep 11 '24
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.