2024 Presidential Debate 2 Electric Boogaloo

fd, see the snippet i quoted

there's constant lying and exaggerations which you're all too happy to explain away

the amount enthusiasm you have over eating a turd sandwich the restaurant opted to give you that you didn't even order is incredible

oh i'm sure she sucks balls majorly

but it's not a vote for her to win, it's not even a vote for her because she'll obviously not win, it's a vote to give genuine candidates a light at the end of the tunnel where they can see a real possibility to to run successfully as an independent or 3rd part

just look at sinema, she didn't tow the party line and was forced out and didn't even bother to attempt running again because without the party apparatus behind he she stood no chance

we have a plutocracy where the route to public office is heavily guarded and restricted

when i see this kind of egregious level of bs it offends me, we deserve so much better than people to say "yeah but the other guy is worse"

The other guy IS worse though. Much much worse. He tried to overthrow an election and he's still lying about it. We haven't had a president or candidate in my lifetime that was anywhere near that bad.

They all suck just isn't applicable here at all.

Trump is far more prepared to actually be president than Jill Stein is, horrifying though that thought may be.

Rick going hard in the #BothSidesSame paint today I see. Some adjustments in the IQ standings might be on the cards.

if this were a thread where 80% of posters were talking about how strawberry is the greatest ice cream flavor in the world because vanilla ice cream was terrible

i too would post advocating that while i agree that strawberry may indeed be better than vanilla, simply being better than vanilla does not inherently make it the best flavored ice cream and there's a whole lot of issues with strawberry ice cream as well

but... we would not expect a lynch mob to come after me claiming i was actually posting that on behalf of vanilla

just insane how delusional you guys are that any "hey now she did exaggerate and lie about some things" is immediately met with "you're a trump supporter" attack because it's so utterly tribal that facts don't matter or how happily you'll excuse it away

this is exactly why trump can lie left and right about everyting and his base still loves him, it's one of the biggest things you guys complain about in regards to him and his supporters, but here we are repeating the same exact stuff but on a smaller scale

stuff like "oh she didn't really mean she was against fracking" is literally the same exact argument of "oh trump didn't really concede he lost, he was being sarcastic"

i guess anything can be explained away as a matter of perspective - but only if it's someone you support

Dude, you're arguing against ghosts. Your "yeah you're right KH is the best candidate ever" stuff is pure strawman. And as for the rest, meh, sure, you might technically be right on a couple of minor points, but your histrionics make it sound like you're really invested in drawing this equivalence. Let it go.

i'm on record, i've stated many times here that trump should be executed for treason

that doesn't mean i'm just going to magically hand wave away anything else from his opposition

i'm not advocating anything, just pointing out the basic facts of her lies and exaggerations in the debate - if you can't handle that then that's on you not on the messenger

i suggest you go back to the beginning and see how i get tag teamed and called a trump supporter for simply pointing out "well she did lie" which is 100% true

i think some histrionics are called for because they genuinely can't see their blatant tribalism at play and think they're being objective for attacking someone who bothered to fact check

and yes, it's deeply implied that she's flawless when even pointing out some exaggerations and lies are met with such fierce attacks

Just my advice bro. It's worth exactly what you paid for it.

You could be right. It would take a very serious mass shooting probably involving more than one person with an assault rifle. It would also require a big democratic majority in the Senate and House. Or a decision to undo the filibuster.

Roughly two thirds of US adults want the assault rifles banned where 53% want it badly and 12% are somewhat in favor according to a 2023 poll. The problem is that about 90% of Americans want background checks to apply to all sales of guns and that can't pass congress because basically the Republican party is owned by big business and in this case the NRA, which is basically run by gun manufacturers, will come after any Republicans that vote for it. Or even say they would.

Even with 60 Democratic Senators and a Democratic majority in Congress, Obama didn't or couldn't re-establish the assault rifle ban his first two years in office.

Yeah. Post MAGA, the 2 conservative politicians that have been somewhat vetted nationally have been Desantis and Vance. Yikes. More than anything I think that shows why Trump will end up like GWB. Hell the chances of him returning and speaking at the RNC in 2032 are probably higher than any Trump family member.

Well, I can say I walked around for years believing trump said there are fine people on both sides without qualification.

Someone, I think ecriture, debunked that here. Forum dem loyalists insisted that it was a dog whistle and whatever, but at the end of the day my understanding of what Trump said was factually wrong and I realized I let a dnc lie get past the goal keeper.

It's funny how these people just reflexively lie so much, and it does hurt their cause imo.

There are a million totally legitimate reasons Trump was a bad president without making any up.

Illegal immigration has a lot of negative consequences one can site without making up stories about dog eating.

Why discredit yourself?

I agree that Trump will speak at the RNC until he is very old. It would be highly unusual for a former president who was less than 90 years old not to be invited to speak at the convention.

But I don't think Trump will occupy the same niche as W. They are quite different people. Trump's core supporters are more fervent that W's core supporters were. (Did W have a hard core base of any sort?) But Trump also is more polarizing within the GOP than W ever was. W was a terrible president who was relatively well-liked on a personal level despite his massive deficiencies as a president. Trump was a terrible president who was widely despised on a personal level. I would be surprised if there is a single person in the world who could fairly be described as Trump's friend. Trump has loyalists. Trump has employees. Trump has family. But friends? Not so much.

Claims copium.

Immediately makes a strawman.

Mmmmmmmmmm, thats good stuff

Lol, wat?

Thats some serious revisionist history. I should know.

I did some more digging on Kamala Harris positions around fracking (see what I did there). And I forgot that she sued CA over offshore fracking in 2016. I do remember this issue coming up, but completely forgot about it.

But for the adults in the thread, this is how I'd summarize her position on fracking, which seems consistent enough w/ what she said in the debate to be not be a blatant lie.

She sued CA in 2016 to stop offshore fracking. This is a big issue in CA as you can imagine.

She said in 2020 that she was against fracking, on public lands.

She signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 includes provisions that allow for new oil and gas leases on public lands and waters, including fracking.

Equating what she said about fracking, to one of the hundreds of blatant lies Trump said however, is either intellectual laziness, or outright ignorance imho.

while the relationship was more colleague and peer than friendly as described in fire and fury he did spend every evening eating cheeseburgers, watching the news channels looking for mentions of him and on the phone with people for hours - can't recall any specifics other than he'd often be on the phone for hours at a time talking to rupert murdoch and others and iirc that dated back as far as the beginning of the book which was before he even began running ie he did that long before he had that presidential heft

book made it clear people like murdoch thought he was idiot, but they still called him and picked up the phone and talked to him all night anyway

so i wouldn't say friends, but he definitely had peers who made time for him

also, the nature of his business absolutely required him to schmooze with a lot of money people and local officials, you can be assured he had a lot of people who while it was ostensibly for reasons of business, he had to regularly meet with for golf or lunch

for a lot of people in that situation, the lack of friends is a choice, why spend time joking and having fun with someone who can't get you anything in return vs someone else who may approve a line of credit or favorably rezone a plot of land you own?

i've seen that first hand in a number of people, even dated a woman who hated hanging out with my friends because none of them could do anything for her and she repeatedly implored me to stop hanging out with them and replace them with "networking" only

explain it to me then, what did you mean by that?

It’s possible if trump loses again , no Republican nominees will ever want him to speak at the rnc afterwards , trying to turn the page of that insane era?
He could go off the script and fack an election by himself just by speaking crazy stuff ….
And the attack from democrats afterwards-> see new republicans same old maga stuff .

It's always funny that the both sides bros can't stand that politicians lie, but never seem to be able to make their own points and equivalences without lies, misrepresentations and the same kind of dishonest rhetoric they pretend is such an affront.