JCauto

How do you figure? Just responding to your points as one does when engaged in discussion. I am delighted by the selection of Kamala Harris and look forward to watching her eviscerate her aged and decrepit opposition. I'd much prefer to enjoy my cocktail in the company of the vanquished, although I must admit to Pattaya not being my cup of cocoa. I may make an exception to hear the litany of excuses and claims of widespread voter fraud while watching the tears of those on the way out while the new America rises to replace the corrupt old Boomers. Will be a pleasant cocktail - don't worry, I would never be so rude as to not reciprocate!

Well, yes, we're in different time zones if you're not in Southeast Asia. You're aware that this is an ASEAN forum, correct? And yes, other people post videos too, does that compel me to have to watch them and comment? You of course can spam videos, as I noted, I come here to debate. You know, using words that I type from my own thoughts and backed up by credible sources. It would appear we have differing perspectives on Kamala Harris - hardly surprising given that you're of the opinion that a qualification for the presidency is out-performing geriatric ASEAN Now posters. Raise your bar a bit why don'cha? Trump's minor fibs? So can you provide us insight into the fib classification system you're using? How many categories of fib does DJT have? Must be a lot. Sheer stupidity? How does one become a Public Prosecutor and Attorney-General when you are really stupid? Seems unlikely. Excellent news about the bet. I would be pleased to take you up on that, although if you're in North America may be a bit difficult for either of us to collect. I'm willing to have a go though. I think you'll find that every single one of us "libruls" believe that Trump will back out of the debate; he knows he'd end up soiling himself on stage when up against a younger and more energetic person who is a trained lawyer. Where's Boyztown? Isn't that a Mickey Rooney film from the early days of the talkies? I can tell you've got your finger on the pulse when you're pulling up recent cultural references like that! Here's a clue for ya, free of charge (well, it is part of what will cost you a cocktail, I do hope you're going to be gracious in your defeat). Biden was definitely going down to defeat after that zombie debate performance and now he's out of the picture along with the tens of millions of dollars and hours of airtime that the GOP has spent to portray him as old and incompetent. Now look who the old and incompetent one is - his equivalence to elderly ASEAN Now posters notwithstanding of course. Kamala is about to mobilize the Democrat base who were definitely going to sit this one out if ol' Joe tottered up to the stage to accept the nomination. Now it's going to be like Obama, turnout will be huge, and the issue of abortion will in no way be able to be swept under the carpet. Turnout is the thing the GOP fear more than anything else because demographically they're going to lose every election where turnout is high. Once we get Mark Kelly on the ticket for VP, it's going to be smooth sailing and the only question is whether we'll get the House and Senate along with it. Let's hope so - then we can toss this radical Supreme Court out on the street and rebuild America as the shining beacon it once was.

Well! That's that then! If he can outperform a 77-year old ASEAN Now poster that PROVES without the slightest doubt whatsoever that he's got the chops to be the President. Do you even read what you post? LOL. If this is the level of opposition that Kamala faces, it's going to be a hot knife through butter type of contest.

Hard to speak whilst yawning. We owe you a response just as much as you owe all the previous responses one. Why not go back and show your brilliance in debate rather than rely on other people's videos? I don't care to watch your curated selection of whatever, I come here to discuss and debate the issues of the day. You're welcome to throw in your two cents. Let me ask, do you reckon we could stitch together a few videos of Donald talking gibberish? Of course we could. What would that prove that isn't already known? The Right are going to start joining Donald in his selection of undergarments given that the race is now going to be led by a Woman of colour. You going apoplectic is music to my ears. Let's have a side bet - I bet you DJT pulls out of all future debates. He knows he'd be carved up like a Christmas turkey by the former prosecutor. She knows his type!

Nonsense! If that were the case, you'd have been banned long ago. Prove it.

There's another school of thought that they have been preparing for it and sprung it at the most opportune time, after the Republican Convention and the assassination attempt. That would of course be a savvy political move, something one doesn't usually get from the Democrats, but if so it's brilliant and has thrown the Republicans into chaos. Harris seems to be easily the choice and they're lining up some really good VP candidates including an astronaut. Harris seems to appeal to the youth. I think this has totally changed the race and in a very good way from my point of view. After the debate, Biden was done.

QED is a commonly used phrase in English used generally for mathematical and scientific proofs. This can be seen as similar to the use of a word like "deja vu" or "bon voyage", which you can even pronounce like Bugs Bunny if you so prefer. This is the point at which you are bereft of argument and scraping the bottom of the proverbial barrel.

Your comment was a direct response to mine and you quoted me in your response. This is fair game. And your "understanding" of the US Presidency is remarkably incorrect - the Supreme Court just ruled that the President has immunity for all official acts, giving him the power of a King. Fortunately for our friends on the Right, the current King is someone who doesn't hold the opinion that he should be a King and wield unlimited power to persecute his opponents, but instead is a staunch defender of the rule of law. Remember when Republicans used to be staunch defenders of rule of law? Seems like another lifetime ago. Yet you think that the most powerful man in the world can be "told" to "step down"? LOL. By someone who was in the room? C'mon, don't be coy! Who was it? Soros? Gates? Which Lefty Boogeyman would be the straw to clutch in this situation.

Schoolboy error. Never ask a question you don't know the answer to, it makes you look a fool once he provided you with the link (which of course he did!). You guys don't really pick up a lot from participating in these discussions, do you?

Quod erat demonstrandum!

My final lesson for today is - when you've been comprehensively beaten, it's considered gracious and classy to simply accept defeat and note that you were incorrect in your earlier posting. This provides credibility for future discussions and lets others see that you're not just bloviating and trying to stir up conflict but engaging in principled debate. Good luck in the future! I'm sure our paths will cross again.

I said "One of the clearest indicators of whether a person is a narcissist is whether they have empathy for others. Narcissists don't. Do you see Joe as someone devoid of empathy? He sure does fake it well in that case. How about DJT? Have you seen him empathize much with others? You will note he only does so when it is in service of attacking other people who supposedly harmed the person he is empathizing with, and in every single case it is for political purposes. IMO he was a faker. Obviously faked it well enough to fool a lot of people." You responded with (of course, since every accusation is a confession for you folks) a claim that I was "deflecting". So I asked you "Do you see Joe as someone devoid of empathy? He sure does fake it well in that case." Your response was that "I was responding to your claim that Biden has "empathy"". Very tiresome, you are trying to pretend that you haven't been discussing the issue of narcissism while directly responding to posts about narcissism. You fully understood that I was raising the issue of "empathy" since it is well understood that Narcissists lack empathy for others, and this is one of the defining characteristics. I raised it in that context and explained so. What's next? Going back to edit your posts? Or just more weak sauce about "deflecting". While deflecting.

Once again, allow me to explain. You raised the point that "IMO a general that takes sides in a political dispute is despicable for trying to use their position for politics. The military are supposed to stay out of politics." I am responding to that point. You did say that, didn't you? That's not a deflection, that's proper debate - I don't back away from your points, I address them directly. Now can you kindly do the same - what is it that has given you the impression that Joe Biden is a Narcissist? Can you point to any evidence? Have any disgruntled members of his administration or party said that? Have you seen any behaviour that is typical of Narcissists? I have answered all of your points, and would appreciate if you could address mine.

So your response to direct quotations proving your point wrong is to (of course) disparage the witnesses (despite them having all been appointed to their very senior positions by DJT). Direct quotations by people of high standing who happened to be present at the time is pretty much what defines the word "evidence". I understand that this has been a highly emotional and traumatic time for you. It was all there, in your grasp, four more years of the division and hatred after that appalling debate performance. And now it's gone, tens of millions of dollars wasted on attacking Joe and Hunter, an entire campaign built on being too old and incompetent and now he's the old and incompetent one! He's going to get his butt handed to him by a far younger, far smarter and far more dynamic woman (the irony!) and you're going to have to sit through another eight years of watching Project 2025 and the decades of meddling with the Supreme Court go crashing down into the dustbin of history like the fascism from which it sprang. I'm going to be here for all of it, reminding you every step along the way! Get your popcorn!

Allow me to explain then - one way to provide enlightenment in debate is to contrast and compare similar situations so that the person who has made a claim can observe that the claim has limited or no merit. There are two people I compare in my post, and both of them have been President for almost 4 years, so there are similar track records, experience and other data to consider. It's a rare experience too, so there are limited other examples one might point to that would be relevant. You claimed to believe that Biden was a Narcissist - I found it hard to believe because when one is a Narcissist, it dominates all other facets of your personality and emerges clearly when one is among an accomplished peer group. You can see this when you examine DJT and the many people who worked very closely with him as President who have observed this and even felt so strongly about it that they had to say it publicly even though they are committed lifelong Republicans. So why hasn't the same thing happened with Biden? Where are the ex-staffers noting his lack of empathy, his obsession with his image, his continuous disparaging of others to make himself look good? Where is your evidence? I gave you pretty strong evidence that those who ARE narcissist can't hide it from those around them. How has Biden managed that? Your claim he showed he could by hiding his age falls flat rather quickly when the literal reason he dropped out of the race is that HE COULDN'T HIDE HIS AGE! Lastly, and most importantly, a Narcissist would NEVER BACK OUT OF THE RACE! He would believe he and only he was the one who could save the country. His act of stepping down was the act of someone who is not a Narcissist.

Sigh, really? Guess what, General Kelly was retired from the military at that point. That's how he became Chief of Staff. Guess what is one of the more political positions in the world? White House Chief of Staff. He was CHOSEN by DJT and APPOINTED by DJT to be his MAIN STAFF PERSON in his administration. Do you think perhaps that this was a bit political? Can you point to your outrage in any previous posts about the highly political antics of General Flynn or others? Didn't think so. Selective outrage that is misinformed is hardly a platform for political debate.

So your rebuttal includes as its lede something spoken by Donald Trump? That he says 25 witnesses disputed this? Ignoring that DJT is one of the more notorious recorded and proven liars in history and taking his statements at face value, let's examine the evidence, shall we? How can we do it to the satisfaction of someone who is so desperately convinced...I know! Allow me to provide quotations from the article you posted in support of your absurd defense. "The White House has collected the names of 25 people who claim to refute Goldberg’s reporting on the cemetery decision. Trump called them “witnesses,” but that’s wrong. Eleven people on the list were not with Trump. They are mostly current administration officials serving at the pleasure of the president or communications aides, and so can offer only bromides. Strikingly, two people who figure prominently in the article — then-White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. — have not commented." Right, so 11 of the 25 were not witnesses since they were not there. That is a lie. An easily proven lie. Just one of thousands. Then-WH Chief of Staff John Kelly is the one who confirmed it. As the article you so helpfully posted noted "Their silence on this explosive story certainly is important in evaluating its accuracy. Both men would have the credibility to refute the reporting, so readers could consider their refusal to comment as some sort of confirmation." Well, not only was their silence confirmation, Kelly explicitly confirmed it as per my previous post. Any comment? The rest of the article demonstrates how the 14 remaining "witnesses" were either carefully parsing their statements or otherwise qualifying them. It's about as weak a defense as can possibly be made. Y'all are really bad at the debating game. You shouldn't provide references that prove your antagonists' point and undermine your own.

Well then, let's explore your opinion and see whether it is supported by reality? it will be easily seen whether he was faking it, similar to DJT. After all, there are always lots of disenchanted staffers from various administrations who leave and spill the dirt on their former employers. I mean the cavalcade of ex-Trump administration people denouncing the Donald as a narcissist would stretch around a NYC block. So on the Trump side, a quick search of "ex trump admin say narcissist" reveals that Ty Cobb (former White House lawyer) called DJT "a deeply wounded narcissist". Former Attorney-General Bill Barr calls Trump "a Consummate Narcissist". Former Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland said Trump was "he ex-president’s “inability to clearly explain things” is a result of his being a narcissist", and the former Director of the CIA John Brennan noted that he has "qualities usually found in narcissistic, vengeful autocrats". These aren't minor administration paeons, these are people at the highest level with their hands on the levers of power. The same search but with "ex biden admin say narcissist" provides exactly zero results that include quotations or statements or book excerpts or even purported second-hand hearsay that a single person involved in the Biden administration who left has that to say about Biden. So if you can remain on topic for one more post, could you kindly provide any evidence for your belief/opinion that Biden is such a good actor that he has managed to hide that he's a Narcissist from everyone around him unlike DJT? I know you won't because there are no facts to support your opinion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/john-kelly-confirms-trump-privately-disparaged-us-service-members-vete-rcna118543 You mean noted Lefty General John Kelly, DJT's former Chief of Staff? That Commie? "A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them,'" Kelly said of Trump. "A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family — for all Gold Star families — on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.”

Are you competing for the "every accusation is a confession" championship or something? One of the clearest indicators of whether a person is a narcissist is whether they have empathy for others. Narcissists don't. Do you see Joe as someone devoid of empathy? He sure does fake it well in that case. How about DJT? Have you seen him empathize much with others? You will note he only does so when it is in service of attacking other people who supposedly harmed the person he is empathizing with, and in every single case it is for political purposes.

So we can say that you are very strongly against those who speak untruths? And yet you claim to be a supporter of DJT? Do you think DJT lies also? Who do you think lies more often?

This will never happen.<removed> wouldn't dare face a strong woman of colour who was a former prosecutor on live TV; he'd soil himself repeatedly - some visibly, some not.

Unbelievable? There were something like almost 200 cops outside of the Uvalde primary school who sat around waiting while the kid with a gun massacred children. Police in the USA have managed to achieve "qualified immunity" and the right to protect themselves first and foremost to the extent where the courts have basically stated that citizens have no right to expect any protection from the police at any point in time. They're more akin to the "Bulls" who were used by the wealthy to go after the working class in the earlier parts of the 20th Century than any of the familiar propaganda portrayals of "Cop Buddy" movies. ACAB.

The article is incorrect. The person who donated to the "pro-Democratic group" is a different guy with the same name who's almost 70 years old. The only thing we seem to know about this guy is that he was a registered Republican who seems remarkably un-forthcoming about his views and plans compared to most who do something like this. Don't think his personal views are that important, more that any kind of nut in the USA can easily get hold of a weapon and start killing people.

Too easy, the jokes write themselves.