Cameroni

Just relaying what I saw with my own eyes.

Well, sometimes you can sense when someone is a liar. There was something very off about this Filipina. It turned out she herself admitted she was a cheater and a liar. I was right to be suspicous of her. My mistake was thinking a detective agency would be able to provide answers. They did not. However, I was able to find out by myself. With some women you should be suspicious. I'm not with my current Thai gf and trust her.

It was not good, not great, but it was okay, enough to look better and win the debate, albeit against a self-destructing Biden. Trump did show mercy, when Biden tangled himself up in knots Trump could have homed in on that, but he didn't. He just said "I have no idea what he just said". He showed great mercy towards Biden.

I paid 2000 USD for the best detective agency in Philippines to vet my Filipina. They sent two guys to her store and her house disguised as flower delivery guys and proceeded to ask the neighbours. Took some photos and sent me the report that the neighbours think she has a great reputation. So the report was glowing and very positive. What they did not know was what she did online. It turned out this Fiilipina was a cheater, a liar and her body count was 3 times higher than she said. However, the private detectives had no way to know this, and instead sent me a report how wonderful she was.

No, it was Kamala Harris:

Of the debate. He was quite aware that Biden was struggling and showed a lot of mercy. He just said "I have no idea what he just said". He could have been a lot more insulting, but he was not. It was clear he felt in command and that was plain to see. But I do think the debate performance he gave was not great, most likely because Biden offered so little to work with and it was quickly apparent that the debate was won.

I agree, though Trump did better than Biden, and was obviously in command, the debate performance itself was not very impressive. He can do a lot better, but he depends on the opposition, if he has a Hilary Clinton his performance is a lot better. Biden just offerend nothing to shine. There is an element of Trump fatigue, in part of course because the Democrat media can't stop talking about him, but he clearly still holds endless fascination, especially for his opponents. His approval ratings on the economy, the most important issue, are considerably higher than for Harris.

Speaking of ads, this one is absolutely superb:

Trump is a highly experienced media genius, he had a top rated TV show. He is far more used to be in front of cameras and more comfortable there. We have seen in past debates, for instance when Trump was asked about his comments about women, which were extremely crass and bad, how he turned it around, made everyone laugh at the expense of a woman and got out of a situation which many other candidates have in the past found was a point of no return. He won the debate against Biden and he is just more passionate , entertainting and comfortable in front of cameras. By contrast Harris, as has been pointed out by her own supporters, takes a long time to gather her thoughts and then comes up with fairly pedestrian sounding replies. Moreover, she has almost a cartoon nasal voice and comes across as quite dislikeable. I would certainly expect Trump to do well against Harris.

It's not running on debt at all, quite the opposite, Russia had amassed huge cash reserves and is spending itself into economic nirvana. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/where-have-the-current-account-surpluses-gone/

Liz Cheney is of course the daugther of the most ridiculed Neo-Con of all time, Dick Cheney. Her father not only amassed a fortune from leading the US towards war, he was so incompetent he shot his own attorney during a quail hunt.

Well under Biden for the first time in modern memory Russia outperformed the US in GDP growth. Economy is not the Democrats' strong point, clearly. https://www.newsweek.com/russias-economy-forecast-outperform-us-within-two-years-1777788

I do think the debate with Harris will go in a similar way, Trump will peform somewhat better, but Harris won't make obvious errors, so even if the debate is balanced, CNN, MSNBC et al will be saying Harris won. They'll most likely take a poll of Harris voters and ask them "will you vote for Trump now?". They'll say no and that'll be the "evidence" Trump didn't win. When a careful and objective viewing of the debate will really have you conclude that Trump did win. That's what happened with almost all 3 Clinton debates.

Not because of the electoral college, just looking at the performance. Read the account the BBC gives above in the link. Clinton had him on a silver plate, his campaign was in disarray. She just had to finish him off. She did not. And Clinton is a far more passionate, intelligent and capable debater than Harris.

That's precisely what I'm not doing, looking at them objectively it seems clear to me that Trump won.

Volvo becomes latest car maker to abandon plans to sell only electric vehicles by 2030 Bosses said decision a result of 'slower than expected' rollout of EV chargers Also blamed withdrawal of EV incentives and tariffs on electric vehicles Volvo has confirmed it has backtracked on its promise to sell only fully electric cars by 2030 due to a fall in demand for battery vehicles. It comes in response to a decline in appetite for EVs across major markets, including a slowing uptake of battery cars among private buyers in the UK. Having previously stated it would no longer be selling its iconic estate cars in the UK last year, in June it said they would return to UK showrooms less than a year after they were axed. And they will be coming back with hybrid petrol engines under the bonnet, as demand for electric vehicles stalls. The Swedish brand is the latest in a long list of mainstream manufacturers performing U-turns on their EV ambitions. Renault's chief executive in July became one of the latest motor industry big name to cast doubts on the transition to electric cars in this decade, warning that sales are not on the 'right trajectory'. Luxury car maker Porsche also said in recent weeks that the transition to electric vehicles to take longer than it thought. As a result, it has announced it is watering down its aims for 80 per cent of sales to be all-electric by 2030 and went on to confirm it will continue to sell the existing Cayenne SUV with combustion engines into the next decade. It comes after Ford recently said its own plans to become an EV-only brand from 2030 were 'too ambitious' and Fiat confirmed it has torn up plans for its 500 city car to be electric-only because older drivers don't want electric models. German auto giant Mercedes-Benz this year announced it too will extend the production cycle of one of its biggest-selling combustion cars due to concerns about EV take-up. Audi has scaled back the rollout of EV models due to falling demand while VW has also adjusted its production outputs due to a combination of parts shortages and lower-than-expected sales. Other manufacturers are reluctant to push ahead with ditching combustion engines. In May, Toyota, Mazda and Subaru committed to bring to market smaller petrol engines to use alongside hybrid technology and adopt green biofuels to lower vehicle emissions as the Japanese motor brands suggests their hesitance to go entirely electric. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/electriccars/article-13812701/Volvo-abandon-plans-sell-electric-vehicles-2030.html?ico=mol_desktop_electriccars

I know what you're saying, that all the mainstream media said Clinton had won all 3 debates. However, that was not true, as we saw with the final result. Even at the time, the BBC came up with much more nuanced report on the debates. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37604731 Let's not forget at the time those debates took place Trump's campaign was reeling from reports on his sexual predator remarks, and Clinton had the chance to kill him off for good in those debates. The opposite happened, he came back to life and won the election. So if we look at the actual result, one has to conclude that Clinton failed to do what she set out to accomplish. Having said that, she did have the courage to debate with Trump on the prowl, mics on, imagine that with Harris. I'm sure when Harris debates with Trump, she will not have a senior moment like Biden. Though she will lose the debate, it won't be as obvious, like with Clinton, however, all the mainstream media will again crow how Harris won the debate. And most likely Trump will proceed to win the election again.

Speak for yourself BritmanToo, when I found Lacessit's Youtube channel it changed my life. Now I know Spanish tortilla and sourdough bread can be combined, no matter what the naysayers say. Thank you Lacessit for bringing beauty and purpose to my life with your Youtube channel

If her exes can't trust her...why should anyone else?

I personally don't like her, I think she's overly promiscuous.

This demographic, very young girls, was never going to vote for Trump. Plus whether a 30 year old will now turn around, if she was going to vote Trump, and say "hey, Taylor Swift endorses Harris, maybe I shouldn't vote Trump"...I dare say this is rather unlikely. Nor would 18 year olds register to vote because Swift endorses Harris, again that's quite unlikely.

I'm just gonna shake this off. Shake it off. Shake it off.

Oh I'm not worried, Swift's fans are 12 year old. Will be a while before they vote... Besides the whole world knew Swift will endorse Biden or Kamala, like last time. Not exactly a hydrogen bomb....

What a shock... Hahahahahahahaha...

He was absolutely right, you posted completely nonsense. Russia has no intention of "erasing" all of ukraine and never did. Plus you display zero understanding of real world geopolitics. If Russia can hardly occupy a small sliver of Ukraine, how would Russia possibly invade Poland, Sweden, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Britain, Germany, etc,? Russia has an economy smaller than Texas. The whole notion is so wrong it's ludicrous.