|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 19 2024 08:41 NewSunshine wrote:
Weird flex to say that Biden's stamina is a valid whatabout even if he's not in the race, when the single driving force behind him not being in the race anymore was his physical and mental condition. Harris is Trump's opponent, so you have to go pretty far out of your way to fawn over Trump's physical fitness unless you forcibly make it a comparison with Biden. Meh.
Agreed. Plus, BlackJack bragging that he (BlackJack) can't physically keep up with Donald Trump says more about BlackJack's stamina than Trump's.
|
On October 19 2024 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:I suspect Democrats internal polling is ahead of the 538 forecast in showing Harris has lost the lead for the first time since August when she took it. Democrats attacks/efforts are going to get more panicked and desperate the worse that gets. Again, *Trump's advisor*, not Democrats. Dismissing criticism of Trump because of polling data is a complete non sequitur.
I mean the "two sources familiar" are most likely Shade Room employees describing what some staffer told them. "Trump advisor" is speculative at best.
That said, it's a silly attack + Show Spoiler +"If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time."
The polling data is indicative that silly attacks like that (even if he is unreasonably exhausted from campaigning) are going to increase, not decrease.
|
On October 19 2024 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:I suspect Democrats internal polling is ahead of the 538 forecast in showing Harris has lost the lead for the first time since August when she took it. Democrats attacks/efforts are going to get more panicked and desperate the worse that gets. Again, *Trump's advisor*, not Democrats. Dismissing criticism of Trump because of polling data is a complete non sequitur. I mean the "two sources familiar" are most likely Shade Room employees describing what some staffer told them. "Trump advisor" is speculative at best. That said, it's a silly attack + Show Spoiler +"If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time." because it describes Democrat's sitting president that you/Democrats absolutely supported despite knowing that attack accurately described him at the time. And would still support him if it somehow was the Democrat option. The polling data is indicative that silly attacks like that (even if he is unreasonably exhausted from campaigning) are going to increase, not decrease.
And, just to clarify, by "silly attacks", you're referring to quoting Trump's team. (This is rhetorical and not a question; this is what you're labeling as a silly attack by Democrats.) But sure, blame it on desperate Democrats and polling data, as if anti-Trump quotes from the Trump team are suddenly invalidated because of polls. I suppose if we had just learned this week that Vance called Trump "America's Hitler", mentioning it would merely be another "silly attack" by desperate Democrats. Same with all of Trump's previous generals and colleagues, who now consider Trump a threat to this country.
|
On October 19 2024 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 19 2024 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:I suspect Democrats internal polling is ahead of the 538 forecast in showing Harris has lost the lead for the first time since August when she took it. Democrats attacks/efforts are going to get more panicked and desperate the worse that gets. Again, *Trump's advisor*, not Democrats. Dismissing criticism of Trump because of polling data is a complete non sequitur. I mean the "two sources familiar" are most likely Shade Room employees describing what some staffer told them. "Trump advisor" is speculative at best. That said, it's a silly attack + Show Spoiler +"If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time." because it describes Democrat's sitting president that you/Democrats absolutely supported despite knowing that attack accurately described him at the time. And would still support him if it somehow was the Democrat option. The polling data is indicative that silly attacks like that (even if he is unreasonably exhausted from campaigning) are going to increase, not decrease. And, just to clarify, by "silly attacks", you're referring to quoting Trump's team. (This is rhetorical and not a question; this is what you're labeling as a silly attack by Democrats.) But sure, blame it on desperate Democrats and polling data, as if anti-Trump quotes from the Trump team are suddenly invalidated because of polls. I suppose if we had just learned this week that Vance called Trump "America's Hitler", mentioning it would merely be another "silly attack" by desperate Democrats. Same with all of Trump's previous generals and colleagues, who now consider Trump a threat to this country. You're not really quoting "Trump's team" they said the rumor you're referring to was "unequivocally false" and pointed out he's doing lots of other things.
It's a silly attack because Democrats don't even believe Trump's campaign schedule pace is disqualifying of being president and everyone knows that.
No, I wouldn't identify the "America's Hitler" or former Trump employees objections to him being president again stuff as the same as Democrats pretending they believe his campaign schedule pace is somehow disqualifying.
|
On October 19 2024 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 19 2024 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:I suspect Democrats internal polling is ahead of the 538 forecast in showing Harris has lost the lead for the first time since August when she took it. Democrats attacks/efforts are going to get more panicked and desperate the worse that gets. Again, *Trump's advisor*, not Democrats. Dismissing criticism of Trump because of polling data is a complete non sequitur. I mean the "two sources familiar" are most likely Shade Room employees describing what some staffer told them. "Trump advisor" is speculative at best. That said, it's a silly attack + Show Spoiler +"If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time." because it describes Democrat's sitting president that you/Democrats absolutely supported despite knowing that attack accurately described him at the time. And would still support him if it somehow was the Democrat option. The polling data is indicative that silly attacks like that (even if he is unreasonably exhausted from campaigning) are going to increase, not decrease. And, just to clarify, by "silly attacks", you're referring to quoting Trump's team. (This is rhetorical and not a question; this is what you're labeling as a silly attack by Democrats.) But sure, blame it on desperate Democrats and polling data, as if anti-Trump quotes from the Trump team are suddenly invalidated because of polls. I suppose if we had just learned this week that Vance called Trump "America's Hitler", mentioning it would merely be another "silly attack" by desperate Democrats. Same with all of Trump's previous generals and colleagues, who now consider Trump a threat to this country. You're not really quoting "Trump's team" they said the rumor you're referring to was "unequivocally false" and pointed out he's doing lots of other things. It's a silly attack because Democrats don't even believe Trump's campaign schedule pace is disqualifying of being president and everyone knows that. No, I wouldn't identify the "America's Hitler" or former Trump employees objections to him being president again stuff as the same as Democrats pretending they believe his campaign schedule pace is somehow disqualifying.
Repeating this incorrect information doesn't make it suddenly true.
Again: Trump advisor says he's skipping some interviews because he's exhausted.
You and BlackJack: "But why do Democrats say that he's too exhausted to campaign much?"
You and BlackJack conflated a Trump advisor quote with Democrats desperately fabricating an attack, and specific interviews with all campaign events. As my first post noted, this "exhaustion" remark was a contrasting explanation to Trump's public refusal to attend specific interviews because he'd be fact-checked by the interviewers. Maybe both reasons are true, or maybe there is some other third reason. Regardless, this is not about him having a rally, it's not about polling data, and it's not about Biden. It's about why Trump is dodging certain interviews.
|
All this stupid conversation proves is that this is a deeply unserious country.
|
On October 19 2024 10:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 19 2024 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 19 2024 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:I suspect Democrats internal polling is ahead of the 538 forecast in showing Harris has lost the lead for the first time since August when she took it. Democrats attacks/efforts are going to get more panicked and desperate the worse that gets. Again, *Trump's advisor*, not Democrats. Dismissing criticism of Trump because of polling data is a complete non sequitur. I mean the "two sources familiar" are most likely Shade Room employees describing what some staffer told them. "Trump advisor" is speculative at best. That said, it's a silly attack + Show Spoiler +"If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time." because it describes Democrat's sitting president that you/Democrats absolutely supported despite knowing that attack accurately described him at the time. And would still support him if it somehow was the Democrat option. The polling data is indicative that silly attacks like that (even if he is unreasonably exhausted from campaigning) are going to increase, not decrease. And, just to clarify, by "silly attacks", you're referring to quoting Trump's team. (This is rhetorical and not a question; this is what you're labeling as a silly attack by Democrats.) But sure, blame it on desperate Democrats and polling data, as if anti-Trump quotes from the Trump team are suddenly invalidated because of polls. I suppose if we had just learned this week that Vance called Trump "America's Hitler", mentioning it would merely be another "silly attack" by desperate Democrats. Same with all of Trump's previous generals and colleagues, who now consider Trump a threat to this country. You're not really quoting "Trump's team" they said the rumor you're referring to was "unequivocally false" and pointed out he's doing lots of other things. It's a silly attack because Democrats don't even believe Trump's campaign schedule pace is disqualifying of being president and everyone knows that. No, I wouldn't identify the "America's Hitler" or former Trump employees objections to him being president again stuff as the same as Democrats pretending they believe his campaign schedule pace is somehow disqualifying. Repeating this incorrect information doesn't make it suddenly true. Again: Trump advisor says he's skipping some interviews because he's exhausted. You and BlackJack: "But why do Democrats say that he's too exhausted to campaign much?" + Show Spoiler +
You and BlackJack conflated a Trump advisor quote with Democrats desperately fabricating an attack, and specific interviews with all campaign events. As my first post noted, this "exhaustion" remark was a contrasting explanation to Trump's public refusal to attend specific interviews because he'd be fact-checked by the interviewers. Maybe both reasons are true, or maybe there is some other third reason. Regardless, this is not about him having a rally, it's not about polling data, and it's not about Biden. It's about why Trump is dodging certain interviews.
You said: If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time.
I'm saying that (and the similar ones coming out of Kamala's camp/corporate lib media) is a silly attack because everyone knows you don't even believe it.
As to the story that spurred your silly attack, maybe if you had the name of the alleged staffer or "advisor" that told some anonymous person this "exhaustion" rumor it'd be a bit more credible, but you don't, so it's not.
The guy is a fascist. Trying to come after him for not being an energetic enough fascist (when everyone knows Democrats would vote for a turnip) is just the kind of desperate attacks I'm talking about being prompted by bad public (and likely worse internal) polling for Harris.
|
On October 19 2024 13:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 10:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 19 2024 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 19 2024 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:I suspect Democrats internal polling is ahead of the 538 forecast in showing Harris has lost the lead for the first time since August when she took it. Democrats attacks/efforts are going to get more panicked and desperate the worse that gets. Again, *Trump's advisor*, not Democrats. Dismissing criticism of Trump because of polling data is a complete non sequitur. I mean the "two sources familiar" are most likely Shade Room employees describing what some staffer told them. "Trump advisor" is speculative at best. That said, it's a silly attack + Show Spoiler +"If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time." because it describes Democrat's sitting president that you/Democrats absolutely supported despite knowing that attack accurately described him at the time. And would still support him if it somehow was the Democrat option. The polling data is indicative that silly attacks like that (even if he is unreasonably exhausted from campaigning) are going to increase, not decrease. And, just to clarify, by "silly attacks", you're referring to quoting Trump's team. (This is rhetorical and not a question; this is what you're labeling as a silly attack by Democrats.) But sure, blame it on desperate Democrats and polling data, as if anti-Trump quotes from the Trump team are suddenly invalidated because of polls. I suppose if we had just learned this week that Vance called Trump "America's Hitler", mentioning it would merely be another "silly attack" by desperate Democrats. Same with all of Trump's previous generals and colleagues, who now consider Trump a threat to this country. You're not really quoting "Trump's team" they said the rumor you're referring to was "unequivocally false" and pointed out he's doing lots of other things. It's a silly attack because Democrats don't even believe Trump's campaign schedule pace is disqualifying of being president and everyone knows that. No, I wouldn't identify the "America's Hitler" or former Trump employees objections to him being president again stuff as the same as Democrats pretending they believe his campaign schedule pace is somehow disqualifying. Repeating this incorrect information doesn't make it suddenly true. Again: Trump advisor says he's skipping some interviews because he's exhausted. You and BlackJack: "But why do Democrats say that he's too exhausted to campaign much?" + Show Spoiler +
You and BlackJack conflated a Trump advisor quote with Democrats desperately fabricating an attack, and specific interviews with all campaign events. As my first post noted, this "exhaustion" remark was a contrasting explanation to Trump's public refusal to attend specific interviews because he'd be fact-checked by the interviewers. Maybe both reasons are true, or maybe there is some other third reason. Regardless, this is not about him having a rally, it's not about polling data, and it's not about Biden. It's about why Trump is dodging certain interviews.
You said: Show nested quote + If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time.
I'm saying that (and the similar ones coming out of Kamala's camp/corporate lib media) is a silly attack because everyone knows you don't even believe it. As to the story that spurred your silly attack, maybe if you had the name of the alleged staffer or "advisor" that told some anonymous person this "exhaustion" rumor it'd be a bit more credible, but you don't, so it's not. The guy is a fascist. Trying to come after him for not being an energetic enough fascist (when everyone knows Democrats would vote for a turnip) is just the kind of desperate attacks I'm talking about being prompted by bad public (and likely worse internal) polling for Harris.
The problem these days is that calling people fascists, even when it’s absolutely true - as is the case here -, is counterproductive.
I mean the guy is a traitor, a liar, an authoritarian, a fraud and a massive cheat. He tried to overthrow the American republic and to steal an election. He has betrayed essentially everyone who has ever been loyal to him. He is dumb, corrupt, narcissistic and immoral.
I agree that democrats would vote for a turnip. The problem is that Republicans would vote for the devil if he was their nominee. And that when you confront them with who their dude is and what it says about them, it just seems to motivate them even more. Remember when Clinton mentioned the fact some folks of the Trump base were deplorable?
I don’t think there dels want to repeat the experience.
|
On October 19 2024 08:41 NewSunshine wrote:
Weird flex to say that Biden's stamina is a valid whatabout even if he's not in the race, when the single driving force behind him not being in the race anymore was his physical and mental condition. Harris is Trump's opponent, so you have to go pretty far out of your way to fawn over Trump's physical fitness unless you forcibly make it a comparison with Biden. Meh.
If someone denies the holocaust but then insists the Israelis are genociding the Palestinians it’s perfectly reasonable to question someone’s motives for doing so. If that person responds with “well the Germans aren’t killing Jews anymore so your whataboutism is 80 years too late” you would rightly realize that’s a dumb argument.
DPB is on record defending Joe Biden’s ability to do the job while questioning Trumps ability despite Trump being able to run circles around Biden. I’m asking DPB to explain his contradictory opinions. Saying that “well Biden isn’t in the race anymore” doesn’t even begin to explain those contradictory opinions.
This is very straightforward logic but it’s my 3rd time explaining now and I expect the response to be something like “look BJ is tripling down on his Biden whataboutism lol”
|
On October 19 2024 14:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 13:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 19 2024 10:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 19 2024 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 19 2024 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:I suspect Democrats internal polling is ahead of the 538 forecast in showing Harris has lost the lead for the first time since August when she took it. Democrats attacks/efforts are going to get more panicked and desperate the worse that gets. Again, *Trump's advisor*, not Democrats. Dismissing criticism of Trump because of polling data is a complete non sequitur. I mean the "two sources familiar" are most likely Shade Room employees describing what some staffer told them. "Trump advisor" is speculative at best. That said, it's a silly attack + Show Spoiler +"If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time." because it describes Democrat's sitting president that you/Democrats absolutely supported despite knowing that attack accurately described him at the time. And would still support him if it somehow was the Democrat option. The polling data is indicative that silly attacks like that (even if he is unreasonably exhausted from campaigning) are going to increase, not decrease. And, just to clarify, by "silly attacks", you're referring to quoting Trump's team. (This is rhetorical and not a question; this is what you're labeling as a silly attack by Democrats.) But sure, blame it on desperate Democrats and polling data, as if anti-Trump quotes from the Trump team are suddenly invalidated because of polls. I suppose if we had just learned this week that Vance called Trump "America's Hitler", mentioning it would merely be another "silly attack" by desperate Democrats. Same with all of Trump's previous generals and colleagues, who now consider Trump a threat to this country. You're not really quoting "Trump's team" they said the rumor you're referring to was "unequivocally false" and pointed out he's doing lots of other things. It's a silly attack because Democrats don't even believe Trump's campaign schedule pace is disqualifying of being president and everyone knows that. No, I wouldn't identify the "America's Hitler" or former Trump employees objections to him being president again stuff as the same as Democrats pretending they believe his campaign schedule pace is somehow disqualifying. Repeating this incorrect information doesn't make it suddenly true. Again: Trump advisor says he's skipping some interviews because he's exhausted. You and BlackJack: "But why do Democrats say that he's too exhausted to campaign much?" + Show Spoiler +
You and BlackJack conflated a Trump advisor quote with Democrats desperately fabricating an attack, and specific interviews with all campaign events. As my first post noted, this "exhaustion" remark was a contrasting explanation to Trump's public refusal to attend specific interviews because he'd be fact-checked by the interviewers. Maybe both reasons are true, or maybe there is some other third reason. Regardless, this is not about him having a rally, it's not about polling data, and it's not about Biden. It's about why Trump is dodging certain interviews.
You said: If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time.
I'm saying that (and the similar ones coming out of Kamala's camp/corporate lib media) is a silly attack because everyone knows you don't even believe it. As to the story that spurred your silly attack, maybe if you had the name of the alleged staffer or "advisor" that told some anonymous person this "exhaustion" rumor it'd be a bit more credible, but you don't, so it's not. The guy is a fascist. Trying to come after him for not being an energetic enough fascist (when everyone knows Democrats would vote for a turnip) is just the kind of desperate attacks I'm talking about being prompted by bad public (and likely worse internal) polling for Harris. The problem these days is that calling people fascists, even when it’s absolutely true - as is the case here -, is counterproductive. I mean the guy is a traitor, a liar, an authoritarian, a fraud and a massive cheat. He tried to overthrow the American republic and to steal an election. He has betrayed essentially everyone who has ever been loyal to him. He is dumb, corrupt, narcissistic and immoral. I agree that democrats would vote for a turnip. The problem is that Republicans would vote for the devil if he was their nominee. And that when you confront them with who their dude is and what it says about them, it just seems to motivate them even more. Remember when Clinton mentioned the fact some folks of the Trump base were deplorable? I don’t think there dels want to repeat the experience.
I mean you're right that most of the things you listed make more sense as an attack vector for Dems than hitting Trump on the fascist thing specifically, I was essentially using it as shorthand for all that and then some. Trying to attack him for the pace of his campaigning is just stupid though.
Part of the point I was making to Sadist is that Democrats would also vote for the devil. Turns out the "99% Hitler" meme sadly isn't even hyperbole. It's where this Democrat lesser evil absolutism leads them.
|
On October 19 2024 10:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 19 2024 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 19 2024 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:I suspect Democrats internal polling is ahead of the 538 forecast in showing Harris has lost the lead for the first time since August when she took it. Democrats attacks/efforts are going to get more panicked and desperate the worse that gets. Again, *Trump's advisor*, not Democrats. Dismissing criticism of Trump because of polling data is a complete non sequitur. I mean the "two sources familiar" are most likely Shade Room employees describing what some staffer told them. "Trump advisor" is speculative at best. That said, it's a silly attack + Show Spoiler +"If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time." because it describes Democrat's sitting president that you/Democrats absolutely supported despite knowing that attack accurately described him at the time. And would still support him if it somehow was the Democrat option. The polling data is indicative that silly attacks like that (even if he is unreasonably exhausted from campaigning) are going to increase, not decrease. And, just to clarify, by "silly attacks", you're referring to quoting Trump's team. (This is rhetorical and not a question; this is what you're labeling as a silly attack by Democrats.) But sure, blame it on desperate Democrats and polling data, as if anti-Trump quotes from the Trump team are suddenly invalidated because of polls. I suppose if we had just learned this week that Vance called Trump "America's Hitler", mentioning it would merely be another "silly attack" by desperate Democrats. Same with all of Trump's previous generals and colleagues, who now consider Trump a threat to this country. You're not really quoting "Trump's team" they said the rumor you're referring to was "unequivocally false" and pointed out he's doing lots of other things. It's a silly attack because Democrats don't even believe Trump's campaign schedule pace is disqualifying of being president and everyone knows that. No, I wouldn't identify the "America's Hitler" or former Trump employees objections to him being president again stuff as the same as Democrats pretending they believe his campaign schedule pace is somehow disqualifying. Repeating this incorrect information doesn't make it suddenly true. Again: Trump advisor says he's skipping some interviews because he's exhausted. You and BlackJack: "But why do Democrats say that he's too exhausted to campaign much?" You and BlackJack conflated a Trump advisor quote with Democrats desperately fabricating an attack, and specific interviews with all campaign events. As my first post noted, this "exhaustion" remark was a contrasting explanation to Trump's public refusal to attend specific interviews because he'd be fact-checked by the interviewers. Maybe both reasons are true, or maybe there is some other third reason. Regardless, this is not about him having a rally, it's not about polling data, and it's not about Biden. It's about why Trump is dodging certain interviews.
No, you said he's old, fatigued, and physically can't keep up anymore. Do you know what exhaustion means? It means you're too tired to do something.
You said he was old, fatigued, and physically can't keep up because he's too exhausted, and your reason is that... he didn't do an interview that he had never scheduled a time and date to be on. When you actually have no conception of what Drumpf is doing all day or whether he's exhausted or should be exhausted.
There are several things missing from your interpretation of reality:
1) There are more possibilities for things you can do in a day than time for actual things. Everyone is "dodging" "certain" things in favor of others. You dodged watching a policy interview in favor of bringing this tabloid gossip to light. Drumpf can do or not do whatever he wants. You're operating from liberal defaultism which is basically Drumpf didn't do something -> that proves it was something he should have done -> that means he's a retarded, cowardly, exhausted old fascist.
2) Different things take from the same pool of energy. Imagine you have a guy who runs a marathon in one day and bikes 0km, and someone like you goes "Someone claims the reason he can't even bike 1km is because he's exhausted." Even granting for the sake of argument that the "exhausted" source were true, that's nonsense in context. The marathon runner's endurance and stamina are not to be doubted.
3) Rallies almost certainly take more energy than interviews. Because standing is harder than sitting. (Wow oBlade, that's your standard for Drumpf's physicality? That he has to stand? No, I didn't bring this up because I have no issue.) So he's doing multiple exhausting things per day, and apparently prioritizing the more exhausting ones over the easier ones.
4) Pretty sure he went on Fox and Friends the same day, which is an interview. Most interviews he's been extending - Valuetainment he stayed longer than originally planned, same with FLAGRANT. (Kamala has been cutting many short, but she has a good excuse which is that she's busy helping Biden run the country in a competent way at the same time as campaigning.)
They are not strawmanning you by talking about campaigning, you are just trying to force blinders to block out all the evidence that contradicts your thesis and repeat the one anonymous quote you have ad nauseam. The interviews are campaigning. He's not giving interviews for his health or to bring him good luck or promote the next season of The Apprentice or to advertise for a fourth wife. It's all the same connected activity and it's the same question of whether he's doing too much or not enough, whether he's exhausted, and whether that combination means he's an old fart (i.e. if he campaigns not enough, and is exhausted, he's weak; if he campaigns too much and isn't exhausted, he's a god-emperor).
|
On October 19 2024 14:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 14:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 19 2024 13:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 19 2024 10:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 19 2024 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 19 2024 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:I suspect Democrats internal polling is ahead of the 538 forecast in showing Harris has lost the lead for the first time since August when she took it. Democrats attacks/efforts are going to get more panicked and desperate the worse that gets. Again, *Trump's advisor*, not Democrats. Dismissing criticism of Trump because of polling data is a complete non sequitur. I mean the "two sources familiar" are most likely Shade Room employees describing what some staffer told them. "Trump advisor" is speculative at best. That said, it's a silly attack + Show Spoiler +"If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time." because it describes Democrat's sitting president that you/Democrats absolutely supported despite knowing that attack accurately described him at the time. And would still support him if it somehow was the Democrat option. The polling data is indicative that silly attacks like that (even if he is unreasonably exhausted from campaigning) are going to increase, not decrease. And, just to clarify, by "silly attacks", you're referring to quoting Trump's team. (This is rhetorical and not a question; this is what you're labeling as a silly attack by Democrats.) But sure, blame it on desperate Democrats and polling data, as if anti-Trump quotes from the Trump team are suddenly invalidated because of polls. I suppose if we had just learned this week that Vance called Trump "America's Hitler", mentioning it would merely be another "silly attack" by desperate Democrats. Same with all of Trump's previous generals and colleagues, who now consider Trump a threat to this country. You're not really quoting "Trump's team" they said the rumor you're referring to was "unequivocally false" and pointed out he's doing lots of other things. It's a silly attack because Democrats don't even believe Trump's campaign schedule pace is disqualifying of being president and everyone knows that. No, I wouldn't identify the "America's Hitler" or former Trump employees objections to him being president again stuff as the same as Democrats pretending they believe his campaign schedule pace is somehow disqualifying. Repeating this incorrect information doesn't make it suddenly true. Again: Trump advisor says he's skipping some interviews because he's exhausted. You and BlackJack: "But why do Democrats say that he's too exhausted to campaign much?" + Show Spoiler +
You and BlackJack conflated a Trump advisor quote with Democrats desperately fabricating an attack, and specific interviews with all campaign events. As my first post noted, this "exhaustion" remark was a contrasting explanation to Trump's public refusal to attend specific interviews because he'd be fact-checked by the interviewers. Maybe both reasons are true, or maybe there is some other third reason. Regardless, this is not about him having a rally, it's not about polling data, and it's not about Biden. It's about why Trump is dodging certain interviews.
You said: If he can't even handle the pace of campaigning, then there's no way he'd be able to handle the job of being the oldest president of all time.
I'm saying that (and the similar ones coming out of Kamala's camp/corporate lib media) is a silly attack because everyone knows you don't even believe it. As to the story that spurred your silly attack, maybe if you had the name of the alleged staffer or "advisor" that told some anonymous person this "exhaustion" rumor it'd be a bit more credible, but you don't, so it's not. The guy is a fascist. Trying to come after him for not being an energetic enough fascist (when everyone knows Democrats would vote for a turnip) is just the kind of desperate attacks I'm talking about being prompted by bad public (and likely worse internal) polling for Harris. The problem these days is that calling people fascists, even when it’s absolutely true - as is the case here -, is counterproductive. I mean the guy is a traitor, a liar, an authoritarian, a fraud and a massive cheat. He tried to overthrow the American republic and to steal an election. He has betrayed essentially everyone who has ever been loyal to him. He is dumb, corrupt, narcissistic and immoral. I agree that democrats would vote for a turnip. The problem is that Republicans would vote for the devil if he was their nominee. And that when you confront them with who their dude is and what it says about them, it just seems to motivate them even more. Remember when Clinton mentioned the fact some folks of the Trump base were deplorable? I don’t think there dels want to repeat the experience. I mean you're right that most of the things you listed make more sense as an attack vector for Dems than hitting Trump on the fascist thing specifically, I was essentially using it as shorthand for all that and then some. Trying to attack him for the pace of his campaigning is just stupid though. Part of the point I was making to Sadist is that Democrats would also vote for the devil. Turns out the "99% Hitler" meme sadly isn't even hyperbole. It's where this Democrat lesser evil absolutism leads them.
Why would it be strategically bad to point to something that Republicans themselves promoted as a big issue and problem for four years? Seems pretty low effort and decent points when the guy sways or stands still to music and seems lost for 40 minutes at a "rally". He is basically serving them easy ammo often on why they should pick the other candidate on an issue the Republicans spent years and millions on promoting.
|
On October 19 2024 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's a silly attack because Democrats don't even believe Trump's campaign schedule pace is disqualifying of being president and everyone knows that.
No, I wouldn't identify the "America's Hitler" or former Trump employees objections to him being president again stuff as the same as Democrats pretending they believe his campaign schedule pace is somehow disqualifying.
It's especially stupid because the only thing actually impressive about Trump's campaign is the schedule. He's outpacing Harris in interviews, rallies, press conferences, etc. Hitting Trump for being too exhausted to campaign while he's out-pacing you on every metric is just stupid. Maybe some people aren't paying attention and will buy it but there are a lot of people that will say "well that's obviously bullshit, maybe everything else they say about him is bullshit too." As someone that would rather Trump lose so I don't have to hear about him (as much) anymore, it's painful that people can't realize how counterproductive that is. There's already enough things to attack Trump on. Why start adding new ones that don't even make sense and only weaken your credibility.
|
Northern Ireland26032 Posts
On October 19 2024 18:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's a silly attack because Democrats don't even believe Trump's campaign schedule pace is disqualifying of being president and everyone knows that.
No, I wouldn't identify the "America's Hitler" or former Trump employees objections to him being president again stuff as the same as Democrats pretending they believe his campaign schedule pace is somehow disqualifying. It's especially stupid because the only thing actually impressive about Trump's campaign is the schedule. He's outpacing Harris in interviews, rallies, press conferences, etc. Hitting Trump for being too exhausted to campaign while he's out-pacing you on every metric is just stupid. Maybe some people aren't paying attention and will buy it but there are a lot of people that will say "well that's obviously bullshit, maybe everything else they say about him is bullshit too." As someone that would rather Trump lose so I don't have to hear about him (as much) anymore, it's painful that people can't realize how counterproductive that is. There's already enough things to attack Trump on. Why start adding new ones that don't even make sense and only weaken your credibility.
If attacking him on other, more damning areas doesn’t seem to work, may as well try other angles I suppose
I don’t personally find this a particularly good one, that said. Wouldn’t be an angle I’d shoot for.
End of the day it seems to me if you can’t criticise Trump because it’s counter-productive, that doesn’t negate the validity of certain criticism, it’s more indicative that people don’t want to hear their values criticised by proxy. That’s what really at the core of it, but it leaves you very little productive rope to work with.
At some point there’s no amount of massaging the message that can circumvent that. Ultimately people will consider voting for the man despite his laundry list of utterly unsuitable characteristics, they just don’t like being reminded of it.
Brexit in the UK went a similar way. Doesn’t matter that most of its predicted negative economic consequences came to pass, it wasn’t a mistake to vote that way. Nobody was wrong
On October 19 2024 10:32 frontgarden2222 wrote:
All this stupid conversation proves is that this is a deeply unserious country.
Basically sums it up
|
|
|
On October 19 2024 13:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
As to the story that spurred your silly attack, maybe if you had the name of the alleged staffer or "advisor" that told some anonymous person this "exhaustion" rumor it'd be a bit more credible, but you don't, so it's not.
That's not how journalism works. People would be far less willing to share information if they had to do it publicly, especially if it was information about someone as spiteful as Donald Trump. You could lose your job and endanger your family, even if you were telling the truth.
On October 19 2024 14:44 BlackJack wrote:
DPB is on record defending Joe Biden’s ability to do the job while questioning Trumps ability despite Trump being able to run circles around Biden. I’m asking DPB to explain his contradictory opinions. Saying that “well Biden isn’t in the race anymore” doesn’t even begin to explain those contradictory opinions.
Yup, you caught me. I am on record - earlier in the year, when we were still talking about Biden - listing Biden's accomplishments during his current term in office, feeling confident that a second term would continue benefiting the American people, and saying that I would far prefer a second Biden term to a second Trump term. And then several months happened, the Biden vs. Trump debate happened, Biden's reelection exit happened, Harris's campaign entrance happened, then three more months happened, and now a Trump advisor said that Trump is exhausted. If you want to ask me right now, point blank, if I think Biden (who isn't in the race anymore) would be able to physically and mentally handle the strain of another term as president, I would say "No". It's not that hard. But this obsession you have with not being able to bring up presidential candidate Trump's age or exhaustion-as-an-asserted-explanation-for-why-he-is-rejecting-certain-interviews because someone else who isn't running for president is also old and past his prime is ridiculous.
On October 19 2024 14:53 oBlade wrote:
he didn't do an interview that he had never scheduled a time and date to be on. ... Pretty sure he went on Fox and Friends the same day, which is an interview.
I'm not sure which unscheduled interview you're referring to, and how you could possibly know that he had a Fox and Friends interview on the same day as an interview that didn't have a specific day planned. Either you know what day the dodged interview is, or you don't. There are surely some interviews that Trump has immediately turned down, and other interviews where Trump has cancelled:
"In August, The Detroit News said the campaign had canceled a planned interview with Trump after the newspaper began asking about crime data. Trump had previously claimed Michigan was experiencing a record-high "crime wave" despite FBI data showing the opposite."
"In September, Trump cancelled an appearance in Pennsylvania alongside Polish President Andrzej Duda, Reuters reported."
"Earlier this month he backed out of a scheduled appearance on CBS' "60 Minutes," while Harris appeared on the program."
"Trump also pulled out of two mainstream media interviews this week, with NBC News and CNBC's "Squawk Box.""
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/18/trump-cancels-interviews-2024
As was cited earlier, Trump is doing campaign rallies and other events. If a potential interviewer reached out to him, and Trump's reason for refusing an interview was that he was already booked, then I would find that to be a more reasonable response; you can't be in two places at once. But when these appearances are scheduled and then cancelled, either because Trump backs out at the last minute because he doesn't want to be fact-checked anymore, or because a Trump advisor is saying that he's too exhausted, then those reasons don't sit as well with me. And they shouldn't sit well with anyone who cares about presidential candidates telling the truth, or anyone who is concerned about Trump's age and health.
I would be interested in hearing why you (or GH or BJ or anyone else) believe that Trump is backing out of some planned, non-softball, non-conservative interviews. These are interviews that were already agreed upon, were scheduled to occur, and then Trump changed his mind. He wasn't double-booked, apologetic, or interested in rescheduling these interviews. What do you think is the most reasonable explanation for these things happening?
|
On October 19 2024 10:32 frontgarden2222 wrote:
All this stupid conversation proves is that this is a deeply unserious country.
While I'm personally far more focused on the political differences between Harris and Trump - their stances on the issues, what they'd do (or attempt to do) in office, their potential appointment of Supreme Court Justices, etc. - I don't necessarily blame anyone who factors age, health, and acuity into their decision for who to vote for. I think most Trump supporters would be reasonably confident that Vance and Trump's Cabinet would continue Trump's vision for America, even if Trump couldn't function properly anymore though, so I think age, health, and acuity would most matter to undecided voters.
|
On October 19 2024 13:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
The guy is a fascist.
I agree. It's deeply unsettling that Trump would use the military to silence his dissenters ( https://youtube.com/shorts/uzcPF9AOCUw?si=hjtNH_J-fxcdhpOJ ). I worry that too many people don't really think he's serious, or that that's not really a big deal, though. Do you happen to know of any strategies to effectively communicate Trump's fascism to people? Is posting Trump's own words, Vance's own words ("America's Hitler"), and the words of Trump's generals and ex-allies the best we can do?
|
On October 19 2024 20:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 14:53 oBlade wrote:
he didn't do an interview that he had never scheduled a time and date to be on. ... Pretty sure he went on Fox and Friends the same day, which is an interview. I'm not sure which unscheduled interview you're referring to, and how you could possibly know that he had a Fox and Friends interview on the same day as an interview that didn't have a specific day planned. Either you know what day the dodged interview is, or you don't.
I'm talking about the interviews you brought up and linked to an article about and I apparently became immediately more familiar with than you by reading the actual source:
But as no interview materialized, Shade Room staff began feeling that feet were being dragged inside Trump’s campaign. No date was ever set, we’re told, but the intention was to try and work toward a sit-down.
A campaign official told us last night that a campaign adviser leading the conversations with CNBC was a “little too hot to try to commit, not realizing that we were adding a full day in Michigan on the calendar, which of course is taking place tomorrow.” (We’d note that Trump will be doing “Fox and Friends” this morning just blocks away from where CNBC shoots.)
So he said he wouldn't do a show he never committed to doing, and the day that news came out, Friday, he also did a separate interview (Friday) instead of doing a yet different interview, all of which interviews are presumably the same level of exhaustion; therefore the question is very simple: How much shit does he have to do in one day every day to prove to you he's fit? The answer is he can never prove that no matter what he does, so who cares. Even before we get into whether you are capable of objectively comparing to other people, like his opponents and if you care whether they are fit or not. Looks like he's just got a tight schedule. Same with the town hall with two medical emergencies. If he had just carried on speaking like an asshole the headline would be "Drumpf callously continuous hateful speech while ignoring medical plight of two brainwashed MAGA audience members." I feel like I'm beating up a kindergartener.
|
On October 19 2024 21:16 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 20:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2024 14:53 oBlade wrote:
he didn't do an interview that he had never scheduled a time and date to be on. ... Pretty sure he went on Fox and Friends the same day, which is an interview. I'm not sure which unscheduled interview you're referring to, and how you could possibly know that he had a Fox and Friends interview on the same day as an interview that didn't have a specific day planned. Either you know what day the dodged interview is, or you don't. I'm talking about the interviews you brought up and linked to an article about
My original point was to highlight your contradiction - you can't assert a double-booking when one of the interviews isn't booked - but I think now you need to reread what you just wrote. There were five interviews I "brought up and linked to an article about", and they were over the course of three months. They couldn't all possibly be on the same day as one Fox and Friends interview. (August's Detroit News; September's appearance alongside Andrzej Duda; and October's 60 Minutes, NBC, and CNBC.) I think you just meant CNBC (which doesn't solve the original contradiction), but please be careful.
I feel like I'm beating up a kindergartener.
Neat. Here is my question to you again: I would be interested in hearing why you (or GH or BJ or anyone else) believe that Trump is backing out of some planned, non-softball, non-conservative interviews. These are interviews that were already agreed upon, were scheduled to occur, and then Trump changed his mind. He wasn't double-booked, apologetic, or interested in rescheduling these interviews. What do you think is the most reasonable explanation for these things happening?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
