Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 25 2024 00:22 Gorsameth wrote: lol we're up to elderly abuse now. This keeps getting better and better.
I don't think it's funny at all. Did you miss what happened to Senator Feinstein?
Have you ever lived in the US or is this theater for you?
Rich well-connected politicians may be insulated and supposed to be safe, but you're going to see elder abuse is going to become a far more prevalent issue thanks to the fact that the current administration finally beat Medicare, which was socialized medicine for those over 65.
On July 25 2024 00:13 oBlade wrote: I never said we should hate Jill Biden.
Maybe you don't include yourself in "we", and that's your prerogative, but you attempted to incite anger and hatred towards Jill Biden with your own personal delusion about her. After all, if she's the reason why Joe Biden didn't back down sooner, then Democrats would have had more time to switch to Harris (or an open primary) than they do now... if only Jill Biden wasn't such a power-hungry human being who messed everything up for us.
I literally linked the NYT saying the family pressured him to stay in. I don't personally believe truth incites anger and hatred. You can read that into it if you want but it's got nothing to do with me. If you want to see hatred, you'll see it everywhere.
Drumpf has been speaking to the American people for 40 years.
And he's well past his prime. Over the past few years, there have been clear signs of aging and cognitive decline. He messes up names, makes up words, and trails off with his speech. Sometimes he wanders off or falls down. We really should talk about that more, especially since he's the oldest presidential nominee in the history of the United States. He should be taking cognitive tests every month, just to keep us updated on how fast his brain is deteriorating.
He agrees with you, he proposed that himself. Haven't seen wandering and falling down, except when he was making fun of Biden by doing an impression of him. Did you get tricked by a strategically edited clip or could you show me?
He famously speaks at like a 4th grade reading level
Why is that a good thing? Why do we want a 78-year-old 4th grader to be our president?
No, my friend, nobody speaks at collegiate and postgraduate reading levels except obnoxious people who spew word salad. That's why it takes a year to write a book but only a few hours to read one. You have to speak instantly.
Wait that clip should show people that Harris is "dangerous" and "insane"?
Do people realize that Police = Government = Costs money? That tightly secured borders ..cost money? That it's their money going to be spent to "mend a problem" that the Magats have blown out of proportion?
That giving people hope can actually help with lowering crime without lawenforcement?
How can you not support BuyBack on guns? You don't have to give up your gun.. but if you want you even get your money back - and it's mostly effective for illegal guns.
I really don't understand conservative talkingpoints.
Trump seems to no know how to inflame issues around Harris.. what a peaceful week.
On July 24 2024 17:38 Vindicare605 wrote: I mean this with all sincerity, if it wasn't for how fucking abhorrent the Republicans are, I would absolutely love to cast a protest vote to punish the Democrats for what they did this year. They seemingly bypassed the entire primary process, even if it was done for the right reasons and even if it was done somewhat unintentionally the point is that they used the incumbment status of Joe Biden to push Kamala Harris in as the nominee without giving a fair chance for anyone to challenge her. That doesn't sit right with me, I feel like one of the only pieces of my vote that matters anymore just got taken away from me and not just this year but next election also.
That's just me, that is my testimony as a single non-partisan voter in California. I can't speak to how the rest of the electorate will respond to this, but people need to keep that in mind when talking about what a "shrewd" move this was.
Sure, ideally Biden wouldn't have chased a second term at all and we got a real primary the first time around, and perhaps someone else would have won. But if there were a redo right now it would be a time wasting formality. Some folks here saying she'd finish 4th, meanwhile Harris is 40+ points ahead of Newsom/Whitmer/Buttgieg in a hypothetical primary in polls from the past few days.
On July 24 2024 17:38 Vindicare605 wrote: I mean this with all sincerity, if it wasn't for how fucking abhorrent the Republicans are, I would absolutely love to cast a protest vote to punish the Democrats for what they did this year. They seemingly bypassed the entire primary process, even if it was done for the right reasons and even if it was done somewhat unintentionally the point is that they used the incumbment status of Joe Biden to push Kamala Harris in as the nominee without giving a fair chance for anyone to challenge her. That doesn't sit right with me, I feel like one of the only pieces of my vote that matters anymore just got taken away from me and not just this year but next election also.
That's just me, that is my testimony as a single non-partisan voter in California. I can't speak to how the rest of the electorate will respond to this, but people need to keep that in mind when talking about what a "shrewd" move this was.
Sure, ideally Biden wouldn't have chased a second term at all and we got a real primary the first time around, and perhaps someone else would have won. But if there were a redo right now it would be a time wasting formality. Some folks here saying she'd finish 4th, meanwhile Harris is 40+ points ahead of Newsom/Whitmer/Buttgieg in a hypothetical primary in polls from the past few days.
Might as well call due process of law a time wasting formality, if you think he's guilty might as well skip to the part where you lock him up and throw away the key right? Same idea.
These formalities are important in a representative government. If we start deciding that the important steps in the process of how our leaders get chosen are unnecessary then where does that stop? Why even have elections in the first place, why not just let the party leaders decide who gets what position?
It's not an insignificant thing and it shocks me that people care so little about the value of their own vote that they don't see it that way.
Drumpf has been speaking to the American people for 40 years.
And he's well past his prime. Over the past few years, there have been clear signs of aging and cognitive decline. He messes up names, makes up words, and trails off with his speech. Sometimes he wanders off or falls down. We really should talk about that more, especially since he's the oldest presidential nominee in the history of the United States. He should be taking cognitive tests every month, just to keep us updated on how fast his brain is deteriorating.
He proposed it only if Biden would do it too. Biden's not in the race though; Trump is the only elderly person in the race, and it's no surprise that he's currently not taking these tests regularly. And on the rare occasions that he is seen by a medical professional, he only lets one doctor - Ronny Jackson, whose name Trump can't even remember - continuously lie about Trump's condition. I think that raises more questions than it really answers.
Haven't seen wandering and falling down, except when he was making fun of Biden by doing an impression of him.
Okay, never mind then. Every time Trump messes up physically or mentally, he's just doing an impression of Biden. Got it.
He famously speaks at like a 4th grade reading level
Why is that a good thing? Why do we want a 78-year-old 4th grader to be our president?
No, my friend, nobody speaks at collegiate and postgraduate reading levels except obnoxious people who spew word salad. That's why it takes a year to write a book but only a few hours to read one. You have to speak instantly.
Why did you jump from 4th grade to the collegiate level? Couldn't Trump at least be as coherent as a middle schooler or high schooler? And call me naive, but I think we should set our presidential standards higher than a power-hungry elementary school child (who rapes and scams and lies and cheats people). Obama, Buttigieg, and so many other eloquent orators resonate with many Americans, without having the word-salad nonsense that someone like Jordan Peterson spews.
On July 24 2024 17:38 Vindicare605 wrote: I mean this with all sincerity, if it wasn't for how fucking abhorrent the Republicans are, I would absolutely love to cast a protest vote to punish the Democrats for what they did this year. They seemingly bypassed the entire primary process, even if it was done for the right reasons and even if it was done somewhat unintentionally the point is that they used the incumbment status of Joe Biden to push Kamala Harris in as the nominee without giving a fair chance for anyone to challenge her. That doesn't sit right with me, I feel like one of the only pieces of my vote that matters anymore just got taken away from me and not just this year but next election also.
That's just me, that is my testimony as a single non-partisan voter in California. I can't speak to how the rest of the electorate will respond to this, but people need to keep that in mind when talking about what a "shrewd" move this was.
Sure, ideally Biden wouldn't have chased a second term at all and we got a real primary the first time around, and perhaps someone else would have won. But if there were a redo right now it would be a time wasting formality. Some folks here saying she'd finish 4th, meanwhile Harris is 40+ points ahead of Newsom/Whitmer/Buttgieg in a hypothetical primary in polls from the past few days.
Might as well call due process of law a time wasting formality, if you think he's guilty might as well skip to the part where you lock him up and throw away the key right? Same idea.
These formalities are important in a representative government. If we start deciding that the important steps in the process of how our leaders get chosen are unnecessary then where does that stop? Why even have elections in the first place, why not just let the party leaders decide who gets what position?
It's not an insignificant thing and it shocks me that people care so little about the value of their own vote that they don't see it that way.
I agree that it's not insignifcant but the mistake was made before January, not now. And no, how a party selects its leaders or nominees is not at all like the justice system or actual elections. It's the difference between laws and bylaws.
On July 25 2024 00:01 Introvert wrote: See, i disagree with the premise. They weren't expecting Kamala at this late date and so maybe they have to pull out some stuff they had shelved, but I certainly don't see any evidence they are afraid. I think the prosecutor angle is lame, and given how the lawfare against Trump has had minimal impact, idk how well it will work. But we shall see.
I think the prosecutor vs. criminal framing of Harris vs. Trump could be a good strategy for the Democrats, as it continuously brings up the fact that Trump has been found guilty of dozens of crimes, is a fraud, is a sexual predator, and so on. It's also true. Furthermore, it destroys the idea that Republicans are the party of law and order. Perhaps it seems lame because civilly-liable rapists probably don't enjoy being known for raping people.
Depends on how they balance it against stories like the police murdering Sonya Massey
On July 25 2024 00:22 Gorsameth wrote: lol we're up to elderly abuse now. This keeps getting better and better.
To be fair, even Michael Moore was calling it elder abuse while saying he'd vote for him anyway.
On July 24 2024 23:43 Introvert wrote: They are already doing it, but I have noticed thet so far no one can find a Republican of note (or one at all, as of yet) who is "afraid" of Harris...is wveyone here going to do the type of reasoning-by-inference they were criticizing oBlade for?
And there are already ads, including this one from McCormick in PA doing what I said they would do.
On July 24 2024 23:43 Introvert wrote: They are already doing it, but I have noticed thet so far no one can find a Republican of note (or one at all, as of yet) who is "afraid" of Harris...is wveyone here going to do the type of reasoning-by-inference they were criticizing oBlade for?
And there are already ads, including this one from McCormick in PA doing what I said they would do.
On July 24 2024 17:38 Vindicare605 wrote: I mean this with all sincerity, if it wasn't for how fucking abhorrent the Republicans are, I would absolutely love to cast a protest vote to punish the Democrats for what they did this year. They seemingly bypassed the entire primary process, even if it was done for the right reasons and even if it was done somewhat unintentionally the point is that they used the incumbment status of Joe Biden to push Kamala Harris in as the nominee without giving a fair chance for anyone to challenge her. That doesn't sit right with me, I feel like one of the only pieces of my vote that matters anymore just got taken away from me and not just this year but next election also.
That's just me, that is my testimony as a single non-partisan voter in California. I can't speak to how the rest of the electorate will respond to this, but people need to keep that in mind when talking about what a "shrewd" move this was.
Sure, ideally Biden wouldn't have chased a second term at all and we got a real primary the first time around, and perhaps someone else would have won. But if there were a redo right now it would be a time wasting formality. Some folks here saying she'd finish 4th, meanwhile Harris is 40+ points ahead of Newsom/Whitmer/Buttgieg in a hypothetical primary in polls from the past few days.
Those polls are really impressive for Harris. On one hand, they aren't actual primary election results. On the other hand, even most of those other listed names have already come out to say: 1. They are not interested in running in this election cycle; 2. They are enthusiastically endorsing Kamala Harris for president.
In other words, no one really wants to run in a hypothetical last-second free-for-all Democratic primary against Harris, because they all want her to be the nominee.
Drumpf has been speaking to the American people for 40 years.
And he's well past his prime. Over the past few years, there have been clear signs of aging and cognitive decline. He messes up names, makes up words, and trails off with his speech. Sometimes he wanders off or falls down. We really should talk about that more, especially since he's the oldest presidential nominee in the history of the United States. He should be taking cognitive tests every month, just to keep us updated on how fast his brain is deteriorating.
He proposed it only if Biden would do it too. Biden's not in the race though;
That's because he proposed it at a point in time when Biden was the candidate. I don't know how I can simplify the concept of time to assuage your concerns about that. But also directly from the article you read:
Trump said that all presidential candidates should be required to take cognitive and aptitude tests.
Do you now have to change what you believe because you agreed with Trump by accident?
Haven't seen wandering and falling down, except when he was making fun of Biden by doing an impression of him.
Okay, never mind then. Every time Trump messes up physically or mentally, he's just doing an impression of Biden. Got it.
My friend, I legitimately asked you to show me. Who doesn't want to see presidents falling down for the popcorn alone? Would love a home video of someone pulling FDR's wheelchair out from under him.
He famously speaks at like a 4th grade reading level
Why is that a good thing? Why do we want a 78-year-old 4th grader to be our president?
No, my friend, nobody speaks at collegiate and postgraduate reading levels except obnoxious people who spew word salad. That's why it takes a year to write a book but only a few hours to read one. You have to speak instantly.
Why did you jump from 4th grade to the collegiate level? Couldn't Trump at least be as coherent as a middle schooler or high schooler?
My point was that the reading level of speech is not supposed to be the same as age. Your question shows you are still missing it. A high schooler would not generally speak at a high school reading level. For example, the Call of the Wild, beautiful flowing elegance, might be a 7th grade reading level. You can't get anyone to speak in Call of the Wild prose. Let alone a middle schooler. That's not what it measures.
Also, it's not a coherence measure. What you later deride as word salad is jargon based speech that is doubtless higher reading level, but whose coherence is not served by the fact that it's a higher reading level. That's why agree or not, you should be able to understand Drumpf's communication with no problem, it's not esoteric, the words aren't bigly, and can mostly be comprehended by a wide audience. We have a long history of forgetting every few years that politicians are people who all have a unique way of speaking which we should prefer to some bullshit standard Washingtonese language, which people who do speak in that way, it almost immediately identifies them as a negatively competent corrupt snake in either party.
On July 25 2024 00:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: And call me naive, but I think we should set our presidential standards higher than a power-hungry elementary school child (who rapes and scams and lies and cheats people). Obama, Buttigieg, and so many other eloquent orators resonate with many Americans, without having the word-salad nonsense that someone like Jordan Peterson spews.
You're naive. You want better rhetoric in politics, physician heal thyself.
Obama's okay on that front. Fine speaker, exceptional writer deeply involved in composition of his own speeches. A little tiring, the contrived shtick of having to wait through every 5 second pause for him to get the next 3 words out when he's doing his pensive act. The number one lesson of Obama to me is that the US voter really needs to look at substance rather than style. People get tricked worse by lies that have a dignified air. Buttigieg, while not as big an example, is perhaps an even more perfect one.
Drumpf has been speaking to the American people for 40 years.
And he's well past his prime. Over the past few years, there have been clear signs of aging and cognitive decline. He messes up names, makes up words, and trails off with his speech. Sometimes he wanders off or falls down. We really should talk about that more, especially since he's the oldest presidential nominee in the history of the United States. He should be taking cognitive tests every month, just to keep us updated on how fast his brain is deteriorating.
He proposed it only if Biden would do it too. Biden's not in the race though;
That's because he proposed it at a point in time when Biden was the candidate. I don't know how I can simplify the concept of time to assuage your concerns about that.
The fact that you posted an outdated quote is your problem, not mine. I said that Trump should currently be taking regular cognitive tests; you pointed out that in the past, Trump had said he'd be willing to take cognitive tests if Biden did too. That's no longer relevant, and Trump promising to take regular cognitive tests isn't the same as him actually doing it. We deserve to know if Trump can still function properly, don't we?
Haven't seen wandering and falling down, except when he was making fun of Biden by doing an impression of him.
Okay, never mind then. Every time Trump messes up physically or mentally, he's just doing an impression of Biden. Got it.
My friend, I legitimately asked you to show me. Who doesn't want to see presidents falling down for the popcorn alone? Would love a home video of someone pulling FDR's wheelchair out from under him.
Oh, I don't have any videos of Trump falling. He's well known for his cognitive/verbal/mental glitches, not really physical ones. The parts of my posts criticizing Trump's old age have just been facetious copy/pastes of the same criticisms that Biden was given, because most of them are still generally applicable to Trump. I never thought that you'd automatically dismiss Trump's elderly issues as him simply mocking other old people, but I'm not surprised at the double standard.
He famously speaks at like a 4th grade reading level
Why is that a good thing? Why do we want a 78-year-old 4th grader to be our president?
No, my friend, nobody speaks at collegiate and postgraduate reading levels except obnoxious people who spew word salad. That's why it takes a year to write a book but only a few hours to read one. You have to speak instantly.
Why did you jump from 4th grade to the collegiate level? Couldn't Trump at least be as coherent as a middle schooler or high schooler?
My point was that the reading level of speech is not supposed to be the same as age. Your question shows you are still missing it. A high schooler would not generally speak at a high school reading level. For example, the Call of the Wild, beautiful flowing elegance, might be a 7th grade reading level. You can't get anyone to speak in Call of the Wild prose. Let alone a middle schooler. That's not what it measures.
You're really bending over backwards to make it sound like a 4th grader would make a great president. You're the one who offered that criticism of Trump in the first place; you didn't have to point out just how stupid he sounds.
What you later deride as word salad
False. You derided it as word salad. I was using your phrasing. If you don't want to talk about word salad, then don't bring up word salad. And, again, we can absolutely have better speakers (both in terms of substance - what they say - and in terms of your obsessive metric of grade-reading-levels) than Donald Trump. Obama and Buttigieg are two of many, many, many examples of people who speak in a more refined manner than Trump, and speak with more substance than Trump. If Trump continues to ramble, mix up people, and mispronounce words in his speech, then Harris will also be ahead of Trump in the speaking department too.
Drumpf has been speaking to the American people for 40 years.
And he's well past his prime. Over the past few years, there have been clear signs of aging and cognitive decline. He messes up names, makes up words, and trails off with his speech. Sometimes he wanders off or falls down. We really should talk about that more, especially since he's the oldest presidential nominee in the history of the United States. He should be taking cognitive tests every month, just to keep us updated on how fast his brain is deteriorating.
He proposed it only if Biden would do it too. Biden's not in the race though;
That's because he proposed it at a point in time when Biden was the candidate. I don't know how I can simplify the concept of time to assuage your concerns about that.
The fact that you posted an outdated quote is your problem, not mine. I said that Trump should currently be taking regular cognitive tests; you pointed out that in the past, Trump had said he'd be willing to take cognitive tests if Biden did too. That's no longer relevant, and Trump promising to take regular cognitive tests isn't the same as him actually doing it. We deserve to know if Trump can still function properly, don't we?
Furthermore, Trump saying he will do a thing is in basically no correlation to Trump doing the thing. The man has clearly proven that his words mean nothing.
Drumpf has been speaking to the American people for 40 years.
And he's well past his prime. Over the past few years, there have been clear signs of aging and cognitive decline. He messes up names, makes up words, and trails off with his speech. Sometimes he wanders off or falls down. We really should talk about that more, especially since he's the oldest presidential nominee in the history of the United States. He should be taking cognitive tests every month, just to keep us updated on how fast his brain is deteriorating.
He proposed it only if Biden would do it too. Biden's not in the race though;
That's because he proposed it at a point in time when Biden was the candidate. I don't know how I can simplify the concept of time to assuage your concerns about that.
The fact that you posted an outdated quote is your problem, not mine. I said that Trump should currently be taking regular cognitive tests; you pointed out that in the past, Trump had said he'd be willing to take cognitive tests if Biden did too. That's no longer relevant, and Trump promising to take regular cognitive tests isn't the same as him actually doing it. We deserve to know if Trump can still function properly, don't we?
Furthermore, Trump saying he will do a thing is in basically no correlation to Trump doing the thing. The man has clearly proven that his words mean nothing.
Drumpf has been speaking to the American people for 40 years.
And he's well past his prime. Over the past few years, there have been clear signs of aging and cognitive decline. He messes up names, makes up words, and trails off with his speech. Sometimes he wanders off or falls down. We really should talk about that more, especially since he's the oldest presidential nominee in the history of the United States. He should be taking cognitive tests every month, just to keep us updated on how fast his brain is deteriorating.
He proposed it only if Biden would do it too. Biden's not in the race though;
That's because he proposed it at a point in time when Biden was the candidate. I don't know how I can simplify the concept of time to assuage your concerns about that.
The fact that you posted an outdated quote is your problem, not mine. I said that Trump should currently be taking regular cognitive tests; you pointed out that in the past, Trump had said he'd be willing to take cognitive tests if Biden did too. That's no longer relevant, and Trump promising to take regular cognitive tests isn't the same as him actually doing it. We deserve to know if Trump can still function properly, don't we?
Furthermore, Trump saying he will do a thing is in basically no correlation to Trump doing the thing. The man has clearly proven that his words mean nothing.
In all fairness though, that is the case with most if not all politicians/ parties across the world
Everybody who votes Trump is oblivious to history or thinks not every human is equal in rights and human dignity is not inviolable. There's nothing to discuss. It's as simple as that.
On July 25 2024 22:26 jodljodl wrote: Everybody who votes Trump is oblivious to history or thinks not every human is equal in rights and human dignity is not inviolable. There's nothing to discuss. It's as simple as that.
There are too many things we do not wish to know about ourselves. People are not, for example, terribly anxious to be equal, but they love the idea of being superior. -James Baldwin
Meanwhile Trump's internal monologue record seems to be skipping, his latestet take on immigration is.. that Hannibal Lecter ...is real and ...his fellow inmates ...come across the southern border... or something
On July 26 2024 02:09 KT_Elwood wrote: Joe Biden puts america first.
Meanwhile Trump's internal monologue record seems to be skipping, his latestet take on immigration is.. that Hannibal Lecter ...is real and ...his fellow inmates ...come across the southern border... or something
This is what we mean by TDS, people have to fall over themselves backwards to pretend not to understand basic English.
1) The claim is certain countries (deliberately) send released prisoners and mental patients to the US so they aren't a burden to their native governments.
2) Imagine you're making that statement in a dry, analytical way. Does anyone care? No. Convince anyone? No. Does anyone internalize the gravitas of it? No. Does it stick in anyone's memory? No. Now you have the chance to connect it to something people can relate to by example. Do most people have personal familiarity with mental institutions? No, partly because as is repeatedly brought up in discussions of homelessness, mental institutions have a much smaller role in the US than they used to.
Then what example can you use people relate to? How can you paint a picture for them? A famous one from (pop) culture. Here are your choices. Hannibal Lecter, or Christopher Lloyd from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, or Leo in Shutter Island. Which one do you think most stirs up the correct emotions of fear and concern and apprehension in the imagination of your audience to get people to accept your point? How do you not get this? When he specifically asked if anyone saw the movie, what part of you thought going on the internet and saying "Look Trump thinks a movie is real" was a clever observation...
3) Now whether the claim as such is true or not, at least a kernel of truth is certain countries, for example Venezuela, do not take repatriation of their criminals when caught in the US. Neither are such criminals handled particularly well in the US, because they get caught and released and we have a bunch of "city's rights" sanctuary city insurrectionists who willfully subvert the enforcement of federal immigration law.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/i1W82gM.jpeg)
