JCauto

Trump probably should seeing as he's free-falling, but doubt he would. Kamala and the Dems are playing it smart, keeping the message and contrast consistent, presenting positive and young as a contest to the old and cranky DJT. When you've got the lead, you play conservatively in most sports, like politics.

Okay, so just generalized dislike for progressives, which you perceive as being hypocritical. For reasons you haven't explained or provided examples of, but never mind, separate discussion. Like your hypocrisy in pretending your posts weren't saying negative things about Kamala?

Hate? No, just want these people who wish to take the USA back to the 1800's to lose badly in the coming election so we can bring the USA forward to the 2020's where the rest of the G7 have been living. You know, social democracy, or as you and your buddies would characterize it "communism". Posts where you were negative about Kamala? Okay, sure! You do understand that there's a function that allows us to search by poster, right? This literally took me all of ten seconds. In regard to the article about her doing an interview with Dana Bash you replied with: "probably one of the biggest mistakes in US political history.....and they were doing so well with the bait and switch. 10 bucks says it is pre recorded and heavily edited." You then posted "yes 100's of millions in organic donations to the lowest rated VP is US history....kinds of numbers." So was that positive about Kamala? Or are you going to pretend you were talking about someone else? You specifically asked me to point to posts of yours where you posted negatively about Kamala Harris, and I managed it in 10 seconds. So are you going to drop the pretense finally? It's okay to join the Right-Wing trolls, what's wrong with them that you are trying so hard to disassociate yourself even when you intensely dislike the Democrat ticket? You're no stoner, you're too wound up and too much of a liar.

She will - there's a debate on 10 September. Be patient! You'll get your chance to see her right up close and personal and next to Felonious. Can't wait. Should Trump go on Cenk Uygur's show? Of course he shouldn't, Cenk would tear him to pieces and it would be a setup.

You mean the "News"? The thing that journalists cover and write about? Go on then, tell us the rich source of truth that you use to come to your clear understanding of the world.

It was an absurd question that stems from your fantasy of having Kamala Harris subjected to a hectoring on live TV by a Right-Wing panel of nutters. Why on earth would she do that? There's no separating the base from Trump as they're willing to be separated from the basic day-to-day reality that surrounds them, so what's the point? And yes, of course you're not a Trumper, you just continuously posit negative stuff about Harris. But of course you're not voting Trump, you're a Cornell West supporter, right? Why pretend?

So if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. Why are you guys so set on making up hypothetical situations that are extremely unlikely to occur, then imagining what might happen, then pontificating as if it actually DID happen? Who does that kind of weird thing? Trying to think, something about sharks and electric boats...

Quackery is reserved for Thai people. Where's the "deport him" guy when we actually need him?

Answer: "No, I don't get it." Sorry, I am only going to make one attempt to explain things to you before I give up. This does provide however an opportunity to correct the fake news story about Walz. "Mr Walz served for 24 years in the Army National Guard, a military force which is usually deployed within the US to respond to events such as natural disasters, but is also part of the US Army’s reserve. In February 2005, while he was still in the National Guard, Mr Walz filed an application to run to be elected as a member of Congress from Minnesota. The following month it was announced that there would be “a possible partial mobilisation of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard” to Iraq within the next two years, according to a 2005 press release from Mr Walz’s congressional campaign. In the statement, Mr Walz said: “I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilisation.” He added: “I don’t want to speculate on what shape my campaign will take if I am deployed, but I have no plans to drop out of the race." Mr Walz then retired from the National Guard in May 2005, which he later said was so he could focus fully on running for Congress. It’s unclear exactly when he submitted his resignation notice. We’ve asked both the National Guard and the Harris campaign when this was. His National Guard unit received orders to mobilise for Iraq in July 2005, and was sent there in March 2006, according to the battalion’s history page." Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cze5gzr97ewo

This is yet another example of what I was referring to in regards to you having no understanding of "context" or, seemingly, an ability to remember what discussion points have already been made. Here is what I said initially when you commented back to me, you know, the post that started this particular discussion. "I think you're aware that the work of the Vice-President is to be behind the scenes and "in waiting" in the case of something happening to the President. Although one can never be too sure with you. Can you name any of Mike Pence's accomplishments during his time as VP other than not caving into the pressure to not certify the election results?" Do I really have to explain this to you?

In other words, your answer to "Can you name any of Mike Pence's accomplishments during his time as VP other than not caving into the pressure to not certify the election results?", is NO.

This is why it's exhausting to try discussing things with you. You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of context, so for you, each post exists in a separate universe uninfluenced by the previous discussion. I was responding to @Maesarieng's post accusing Tim Walz of being a coward with the implication that he avoided active combat (which is incorrect, but whatever). I pointed out that the person he supports for president received several deferments based on a dubious excuse, hence it is illogical and hypocritical to be attacking the Democratic VP candidate despite his serving for 24 years while his Presidential candidate never served. That's the context. Get it?

Absolutely! He's personable and very Midwestern, you know, like the average American voter. And a coward? Tell us about your service to your country. And I'm pretty sure you'd be lying if you did, because among actual military people there's a code about attacking other fellow soldiers. He served in the National Guard for 24 years. That's why he doesn't disparage JD Vance even though he was writing press releases in a Quonset hut rather than on the front lines. As to the actual presidential candidate you favor, perhaps this passage from the classic Hemingway novel "The Old Man and the Sea" would inspire some reflection: "But I must have confidence and I must be worthy of the great DiMaggio who does all things perfectly even with the pain of the bone spur in his heel."

Ooh! Me too! I've seldom seen a less likable politician. He'd lose in the largest landslide in electoral history.

Yes, we know what he was like - incompetent, mercurial, bombastic. He made bad policy and caused the deaths of over 500,000 Americans through his COVID-19 misinformation and helter-skelter mismanagement. He likely compromised the entire US intelligence network with his carelessness with classified information. I think you're aware that the work of the Vice-President is to be behind the scenes and "in waiting" in the case of something happening to the President. Although one can never be too sure with you. Can you name any of Mike Pence's accomplishments during his time as VP other than not caving into the pressure to not certify the election results?

Oooh, you're getting close! Just a little bit further and you'll be there.

It's so sad! He's just a swell guy saying nice things about other people and yet these meanies come back after his well-intentioned and gentle criticisms with vitriolic bombast! So cruel! Why are they so mean to the nice Orange man? LOL. What a snowflake!

You see, there's this thing called "evidence", and it shows whether something corresponds to facts or not. There's actual evidence, court-based testimony under oath that was found credible that he's a rapist. That's E. Jean Carroll, and there are others - there's dozens of photos of Trump and Epstein, and he was a regular passenger on the "Lolita Express". As to misogyny and racism, all you need to do is watch and read his interviews, tweets and speeches and you'll find plenty of it. Remember the "fine people on both sides" of Charlottesville? Remember "grab 'em by the pussy"? Remember the Central Park Seven whom he wanted to execute despite their innocence? This is evidence of his views and calling him a misogynist and racist corresponds to his statements. His statements correspond to his beliefs, he's made them over and over again.

Do you have a source that shows there were "worse bits" that were edited out? I didn't think so. It's perfectly fine that you live in an alternative reality and I encourage you to continue to think that Kamala is a barely functioning human and DJT is going to bluster his way to victory somehow despite alienating pretty much anyone whose votes he requires. He's just grifting the GOP anyway and will bring the House and Senate down with him. This could queer Republican politics for a generation; I may well have to alter my opinion of the man if he accomplishes the destruction of the Right.

Congrats on achieving a new level of whataboutism that hadn't been reached before! What about all the criminals here posting on ASEAN Now? LOL! Just an FYI - I very much doubt that many posters on ASEAN Now have committed felonies in their home countries. That you downplay felony convictions for a candidate for the highest office as being minor just because they're "white collar" just shows how morally bankrupt your worldview is. I fully expect you had no such belief prior to Trump's candidacy as the vast majority of his supporters were "conservative" prior to the MAGA movement and had strong views on law enforcement, Russia's regime and other coherent policy positions. Those are now out the window as you cater to the whims of an unstable man whose views offer no insight and who insists on complete fealty even when endorsing positions that were the opposite of those held just the week before. You're in a cult of personality.

Reading the stilted and unnatural writing in this article made me realize that there were no humans involved in its writing. This is the wonderful future we have thanks to AI, computer-generated drivel instead of journalism.

Yeah, I mean what is this "NASA" anyway and what have they ever done? And everyone knows none of those people had any scientific training, no wonder they never succeeded at anything. Elon's great talent is grifting the government and public for money and producing very little in the way of results for it, while stealing the credit for the actual work from the engineers who did it.

So, you got any facts or evidence to back that rather astonishing claim? Beyond that, why does it matter? Even Trump's running mate compared him to a famous fascist German politician.

Grifters gonna grift. And they're all fighting over the same slice of the pie, the Far Right dummies who buy Project 2025 and all this other Christo-fascist nonsense. Trump currently gets a disproportionate part of that pie, so it's absolutely in their interest to ditch him at the first opportunity once they've decided that he's grown that pie large enough for them to move forward without him. Look up what a "King Rat" is, not the excellent movie or book, the actual biological term. That's what we're seeing here, just the political version. What they don't realize is they all end up bound together and going down the sewer as one.

Where do I start? The article is not "dumb" because it is not advocating anything, it is describing the tensions within Trump's campaign between the Far Right "Groypers" as personified by Nick Fuentes and their strong push for the Trump campaign to move even further Right on various issues to the difficulties that would present in making Trump more appealing the the broader electorate. What's "dumb" is your inability to read the article and correctly interpret what they wrote. This, however, is not me saying that you are stupid - I don't know you so that would be rude and could quite easily be incorrect. It is me saying that the state of the Right these days has gotten so convoluted and mixed up that by accepting a regular diet of lies and exaggerations, there is no longer anything that they can read without seeing it as some sort of a political op-ed. Here is an article that they should find interesting because it highlights one of the central tensions within the Trump campaign; how to reconcile the core Base of the GOP which has skewed much farther Right than the GOP traditionally has been while attracting enough of the other voters to win an election. Despite this being easily seen and obvious, the poster instead attacks the article as being idiotic when it's simply basic journalism. An article discussing the "Squad" and the "uncommitted" voters within the Democrat Party would be similar, it would discuss how the more Left-wing (there literally aren't any Far Left voters in the USA as far as significant blocks are concerned) voters want the Democrats to condemn Israel and move towards a Single Payer system while the mainstream Democrats want to push them to the side similar to what happened with Bernie Sanders since this would cause many centrist and independent voters to abandon their party. Common sense. Not political. And certainly not "dumb".