Cameroni

Can I just ask: Does anyone remember seeing Harris win any of the arguments/exchanges? Like when Trump responded at the very end to Kamala saying I will do this and I will do that and Trump replied "So, she just started by saying she's going to do this, she's going to do that, she's going to do all these wonderful things. Why hasn't she done it? She's been there for 3 1/2 years. They've had 3 1/2 years to fix the border. They've had 3 1/2 years to create jobs and all the things we talked about. Why hasn't she done it? She should leave right now, go down to that beautiful white house, go to the capitol, get everyone together and do the things you want to do. But you haven't done it. And you won't do it.". That was clearly a case of Trump winning an argument/exchange. Were there any where Harris won?

You're imputing a moral dimension to Churchill's decision after the fact, which simply did not exist. That's pure fantasy. Churchill did not decide to refuse Hitler's peace offer because of his moral concern about the welfare of the jews. That's you putting wishful interpretations on history.

I was also amazed how influential Tucker is. Nobody had basically heard of Cooper before the interview. Now he's a household name and his podcast ist ranked higher than ever.

No, it wouldn't just have been minorities. There would have been a massive genocide of the Slav majority in the East. As it was we saw a genocide of Germans after the war with 12 to 14 million Germans being ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe and Central Europe, many killed in horrific abominal ways, some 1.7 million Germans. In addition there were about 900,000 Japanese civilian killed. There were civilian deaths on many sides, and there would have been even if Britain and Germany had come to terms. However, I am talking purely from a geo political perspective.

that would have been so funny, but she may have thrown it on the floor.

What I don't understand why he went on about the pet eating? He has all these serious crimes immigrants commit and he talks about pet eating? I know he's a show man, but that was so unnecessary.

No you are speaking untruths. She very clearly said: "Donald Trump left us the worst public health epidemic in a century." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-presidential-debate-transcript/story?id=113560542 So Trump left her the epidemic. She did not complain about the handling of the pandemic in this sentence. She literally said Trump left her the pandemic.

Do you remember Dick Cheney? He showed that the VP office has huge power, it depends on the person using it. Harris has just not done anything with her power. She clearly has gone a different path to Biden, she's followed Trump's path, strengthen border patrols, fund police, enable fracking....no wonder Trump quipped he was sending her a Maga hat.

Actually I think that's right. The mainstream media said Trump lost all 3 debates against Clinton. And Trump still won. We are seeeing Harris lose steam actually, and this debate is unlikely to matter in the grand scheme of things.

I don't think viewers were thinking of that when he said Harris could have implemented those policies after having been in the white house for almost 4 years. It was a rock solid argument. Did Harris win any actual argument?

He should have focused more on the economy, but again these moderators directed the debate really. Made them talk about environmental concerns. However, with inflation there were so many other causes, especially Covid, I just don't think most Americans blame Biden and Harris for inflation. I mean all other countries in Europe also had inflation.

Sure, it's here: "Donald Trump left us the worst public health epidemic in a century." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-presidential-debate-transcript/story?id=113560542 To blame Trump for the Covid pandemic, is frankly beyond moronic.

I thought Trump finished very strong when he said "She's been in office almost 4 years, why has she not done it?", after Kamala made all the promises. But before that it went a bit awry with pets.

He had a few weak moments. Much worse was how he tried to blame Kamala and Joe for the inflation, when Americans know it's not their fault. But then Kamala did the same with Covid, blaming Trump for Covid, which was equally ridiculous. Basically both lied a lot. Trump won most of the arguments and finished strong. But he talked excessively about his record and came up with the stupid pet eating comment, if it hadn't been for that there would have been a strong case for him having won.

That's not satisfactory reply. The Vice Presidential office has considerable power, as we saw with Cheney. When Kamala promises to do this and to do that, it is devastating for Trump to say "She promises to do all this, but she's been in office for almost 4 years, why did she do not it already"? When it came to the arguments, Trump really won them all. However, Kamala did the better acting, laughing and smirking, and had a few good soundbites ("He was fired by 80 million people). The suggestion for people to go to the Trump rally was a highpoint for her. But where it mattered, on the economy, all she offered was empty air and nothing of substance and even the mainstream media concede that. Overall Trump had the better moments, when he shut her up "I'm talking, sound familiar", "I was going to send her Maga hat because now she has all my policies" and at the very end when he countered Kamala's promises with "She's been in office for 4 years why hasn't she done it?". Alas, his pet eating gaffe was a pity, so unnecessary given the real crimes immigrants have committed, that was a pretty stupid mistake, and he talked too much about his own record. He should have talked about hers. You could, at a stretch call it a draw. Which is already surprising, I never thought Harris would fumble like Biden, but I did think Trump would win easily. Instead it was a draw, so Harris did well. But to say she won the debate is completely unbelievable. The moderators craven unfair one-sided "fact checking" which only focused on Trump and let Harris off for her many lies, has clearly driven home to many Americans that the media is not objective, and quite clearly Harris was helped by the moderators in this debate to a great degree.

We see even in our modern day with the SALT treaties, where the US withdraw at will, and many others, that treaties between governments are not worth the paper they're written on. However, in the case of the British Empire and Nazi Germany there was a common enemy, Communist Russia. Both Hitler and Churchill were afraid of communism, albeit for different reasons. There was not the same ideological antagonism between Britain and Germany as there was between Germany and Russia. Had Britain given Germany a free hand in Eastern Europe and Germany in turn would have done the same for Britain in the rest of the world, Britain would have retained its Empire. It would not make sense to suggest Germany would have invaded Britain, he never wanted to do that, only to knock Britain out of the war later. Britain had nothing to offer Germany, in terms of resources or living space. There would have been no need to seek a conflict with Britain. How do you think it would have arisen?

I'm discussing a figure of World War two, not planning the Final Solution, so I don't really need an excuse.

Britain did allow Hitler to take Poland. Britain declared war on Germany knowing full well they would not fight to liberate Poland and could not do so. The reason Britain declared war was not to liberate Poland, they did not, it was to ensure Germany does not become too powerful in Europe, a perceived danger to British dominance. As for the final solution in 1939 it was not known by the British leadership so there was no way it could figure in the decision making, and was unlikely it would have had they known.

Exactly, people simply don't know what Harris stands for. And her peformance in the debate did not clear up HOW she would create an "Opportunity Economy". How she was going to bring down inflation. All she offered was platitudes. And Trump called her out on it at the end when he said "She promised to do all these things, but she's been in office for almost 4 years, why has she not done them already?" That was quite powerful.

In terms of Poland, the Poles had annexed whole swathes of German lands after 1918. Germany tried earnestly to address this situation by negotiation but Poland, encouraged by British support, refused to address them. Germany had legitimate grievances against Poland, and in the end Poland refused to neogiate in good faith. What was Germany to do to ensure its territorial integrity? In terms of the Jews Churchill did not know about the Einsatzgruppen in June 1940 when the peace offer was made, so the point is moot.

No she did not, in fact Trump finished better, when she went on and on about "I will create an opportunity economy" ...I will do this and that, Trump simply countered "She's been in office for 3 and a half years, why did she not do it already?". Ultimately there was no comeback for that. Kamala Harris promised to do this or that, but she's been in office almost 4 years, and did not do the things she promised.

As usual, even the left media concedes she gave little in terms of policy. She did nothing to win this debate.

There's nothing to deny. I saw the debate. What happened was moderators directing the debate and fact checking it only against one person. The moderators were unfair, uneven and obviously out to go against Trump. Even so, Harris offered little by way of policy, only attacked Trump, with fake smirking. What did she do to win exactly?

For the same reason they planned Operation Sealion, to knock France out of the war. Because France and Britain had declared war on Germany. That's another important point. Germany did not declare war on Britain. Or France. But clearly once they declared war Germany had to go to war against them.

No, because why would Hitler occupy Britain, who has no resources and nothing to offer Germany? Hitler wanted living space in the East. Not in Albion.