'Republican Karl Rove says Trump got ‘crushed by a woman he called dumb as a rock’ during ‘train wreck’ debate'

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-karl-rove-says-trump-031022780.html

 

'Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Rove says the former president’s performance was “far worse than anything Team Trump could have imagined” and Trump was “visibly rattled” as Harris “launched rocket after rocket at him.”'

3 minutes ago, Inderpland said:

“far worse than anything Team Trump could have imagined”

 

That is the only part I would take issue with.....they must know he can do much worse.

Harris Surges Past Trump In Election Betting Markets After First and only Presidential Debate by the looks of things.

7 hours ago, mfd101 said:

So far - over 2 months & including The Debate - it appears that the more people see of her, the more they like her. Funny that.

 

Yup. Hilarious.

How much longer are we going to see this blatant denial? His stock plummeted right after the debate, bookies are saying the smart money is on Harris because of the debate results - THESE are the real indicators of where things are going. Money talks.

1 hour ago, Kinok Farang said:

This has no interest to me at all being a Brit but i have interrupted this topic to ask, "what is an incel" please?

I know what a "bitter,fat,old white man"is because i am one but incel?I really need to catch up with all this woke speak.

Incel is shorthand for involuntary celibate.

 

In other words, a male who is so unattractive by virtue of physical appearance every woman rejects him when he wants sex.

3 hours ago, DougieMax said:

Let's see if the file format is OK ...

Oh dear. You MAGAs sure can't handle truth can you!

55 minutes ago, Inderpland said:

What a weird interaction.

 

Thanks to you.

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

Incel is shorthand for involuntary celibate.

 

In other words, a male who is so unattractive by virtue of physical appearance every woman rejects him when he wants sex.

It's not necessarily just their physical attributes (or lack thereof). Since the advent of generations of kids addicted to their cell phones, the art of casual conversation is basically dead. Add to that the land mines one must avoid for sake of political correctness, it's essentially impossible to know how to chat in real life with a stranger.

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

 

 

In other words, a male who is so unattractive by virtue of physical appearance every woman rejects him when he wants sex.

 

 I don't think attractiveness is the issue.  Famous incel Elliot Rodger was not repulsively ugly. it was more an attitude problem. He thought he was so good looking and such a gift to the world that women refusing him shattered his ego and sent him down an anger path. They expect too much, incels. but they're not necessarly physically repulsive.

34 minutes ago, DougieMax said:

Yes, that's because Joe was the hands-down victor.

 

That's the difference between die hard Trump fans in here and most of the rest of us. We have no problem admitting that Biden lost badly in his debate; meanwhile, most Trump fans cannot admit Harris won (handily), or they try to make silly excuses, like the 3 against 1 argument. 

Trump is used to having women fawn on him. He's also a racist, who thinks he is smarter than anyone in the room.  He knows how to punch all the buttons of his followers.

 

Getting his own buttons punched by a woman of color, who was clearly smarter than him, was a new experience. No wonder he scowled all the way through the debate.

15 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Incel is shorthand for involuntary celibate.

 

In other words, a male who is so unattractive by virtue of physical appearance every woman rejects him when he wants sex.

Thanks.

Just now, Kinok Farang said:

Thanks.

Some men become incels (involuntary celibates) due to a combination of social, psychological, and personal factors. These may include feelings of rejection, isolation, or difficulty forming romantic or sexual relationships. Some incels may experience low self-esteem, body image issues, or social anxiety. Online communities can reinforce negative views of women and relationships, amplifying their frustrations and sometimes leading to hostility. Broader societal issues like shifting gender dynamics and unrealistic expectations from media can also contribute to their sense of alienation.

 

So being a double-bagger doesn't help.

 

 

 

Roll another one...

 

5 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

Some men become incels (involuntary celibates) due to a combination of social, psychological, and personal factors. These may include feelings of rejection, isolation, or difficulty forming romantic or sexual relationships. Some incels may experience low self-esteem, body image issues, or social anxiety. Online communities can reinforce negative views of women and relationships, amplifying their frustrations and sometimes leading to hostility. Broader societal issues like shifting gender dynamics and unrealistic expectations from media can also contribute to their sense of alienation.

 

So being a double-bagger doesn't help.

 

 

 

Thanks again.Yes,oh for the days when i was just a single bagger.

12 minutes ago, farang51 said:

 

That's the difference between die hard Trump fans in here and most of the rest of us. We have no problem admitting that Biden lost badly in his debate; meanwhile, most Trump fans cannot admit Harris won (handily), or they try to make silly excuses, like the 3 against 1 argument. 

3 against 1 argument would be a very big deal for you if the positions were reversed.

2 minutes ago, DougieMax said:

3 against 1 argument would be a very big deal for you if the positions were reversed.

It was 3 on 1, of course, but Trump should have expected it and adjusted his performance accordingly. I think he was a bit overconfident. Harris prepared well and went in with a game plan to disqualify Trump for the office, rather than to lay out her own vision of the presidency. And to a large extent she succeeded. The Donald's ego has always been his Achilles heel.

 

Now, whether it will have a lasting impact is another story. Without having any of her own policies, Harris still trails Trump in voter confidence on key issues like immigration and the economy.  

2 minutes ago, DougieMax said:

3 against 1 argument would be a very big deal for you if the positions were reversed.

This 3 against 1 argument is nonsense.  Trump only got fact-checked because he was lying.  And it was confirmed that he was lying.  Trump supporters don't want Trump to be fact-checked in real time because they want him to lie with impunity.  The moderators even missed a few Trump lies, but for the most part, they did their job.

6 minutes ago, DougieMax said:

3 against 1 argument would be a very big deal for you if the positions were reversed.

There was no 3 against 1 bias unless you count 3 normal people against one unhinged? If one candidate is making statements that are demonstrably false or misleading, it is appropriate for the moderators to push back and ask for clarification or evidence. This is not necessarily a sign of bias, but rather a reflection of the moderators' responsibility to ensure that the debate is informative and useful for voters.

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

It was 3 on 1, of course, but Trump should have expected it and adjusted his performance accordingly. I think he was a bit overconfident. Harris prepared well and went in with a game plan to disqualify Trump for the office, rather than to lay out her own vision of the presidency. And to a large extent she succeeded. The Donald's ego has always been his Achilles heel.

 

Now, whether it will have a lasting impact is another story. Without having any of her own policies, Harris still trails Trump in voter confidence on key issues like immigration and the economy.  

Yeah, holding him accountable for his many lies and actual acts he has done or didn't do is SO unfair!

Wah wah wah wah . . . .

4 minutes ago, DougieMax said:

3 against 1 argument would be a very big deal for you if the positions were reversed.

 

No, because there were not 3 against 1 here or in any other presidental debate in the US. The journalist would have been fact checking Harris too if she had been talking about cat eating immigrants or other crazy stuff she saw on TV. 

1 hour ago, Kinok Farang said:

All those rude words when you could have told me what an incel is in half the time.

Involuntarily Celibate. I just Bingled it.

 

Who can put a Confused Emoji on that, unless they do not know of Google & Bing. Actually I did neither, I used Brave search.

1 hour ago, Inderpland said:

'Republican Karl Rove says Trump got ‘crushed by a woman he called dumb as a rock’ during ‘train wreck’ debate'

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-karl-rove-says-trump-031022780.html

 

'Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Rove says the former president’s performance was “far worse than anything Team Trump could have imagined” and Trump was “visibly rattled” as Harris “launched rocket after rocket at him.”'

A Harris aide who stood in for Trump during her debate prep, after it was over, hilariously described Trump as a “malfunctioning appliance.”

8 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It was 3 on 1, of course, but Trump should have expected it and adjusted his performance accordingly. I think he was a bit overconfident. Harris prepared well and went in with a game plan to disqualify Trump for the office, rather than to lay out her own vision of the presidency. And to a large extent she succeeded. The Donald's ego has always been his Achilles heel.

 

Now, whether it will have a lasting impact is another story. Without having any of her own policies, Harris still trails Trump in voter confidence on key issues like immigration and the economy.  

I don't necessarily agree, but you are at least reasonable sounding in your reply.

 

After the fairly conducted debate on CNN, it was not unreasonable to expect something similar from ABC. On that point, he was sadly mistaken; once a whore, always a whore. You can be sure that it will not happen again. Trump generally knows how to learn from his mistakes which, one would think, would be an attractive quality for the position.

 

Harris was indeed well prepared which I am convinced also involved the use of an earphone for outside instructions. As you observed, she stated nothing of substance regarding policy and made a number of patently false statements that went unchallenged. The facial exprtessions were distracting too along with the whiny quality of her voice which is not the stuff of leadership.

 

Thank you for being civil.

17 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

This 3 against 1 argument is nonsense.  Trump only got fact-checked because he was lying.  And it was confirmed that he was lying.  Trump supporters don't want Trump to be fact-checked in real time because they want him to lie with impunity.  The moderators even missed a few Trump lies, but for the most part, they did their job.

Harris dodged question after question. They never called her on it. Blaming Trump is not an answer. You are the VP now.

5 minutes ago, maesariang said:

Harris dodged question after question. They never called her on it. Blaming Trump is not an answer. You are the VP now.

Every politician dodge questions. In an interview, they may be called out on it. Not in a debate (unless from the opponent). Trump was dodging too, they did not call him out on that. They did correct the crazy stuff from both candidates.

12 minutes ago, DougieMax said:

I don't necessarily agree, but you are at least reasonable sounding in your reply.

 

After the fairly conducted debate on CNN, it was not unreasonable to expect something similar from ABC. On that point, he was sadly mistaken; once a whore, always a whore. You can be sure that it will not happen again. Trump generally knows how to learn from his mistakes which, one would think, would be an attractive quality for the position.

 

Harris was indeed well prepared which I am convinced also involved the use of an earphone for outside instructions. As you observed, she stated nothing of substance regarding policy and made a number of patently false statements that went unchallenged. The facial exprtessions were distracting too along with the whiny quality of her voice which is not the stuff of leadership.

 

Thank you for being civil.

Thanking others for being civil while not being civil by a long shot yourself. And introducing conspiracy at the same time. 

8 minutes ago, DougieMax said:

After the fairly conducted debate on CNN, it was not unreasonable to expect something similar from ABC. On that point, he was sadly mistaken; once a whore, always a whore. You can be sure that it will not happen again. Trump generally knows how to learn from his mistakes which, one would think, would be an attractive quality for the position.

This seems clearly deluded to me. There was no difference of the line of questioning on CNN or ABC. Trump won the CNN debate because Biden was out of it. Trump lost the ABC debate because of his nonsense and lack of composure far surpassed what any rational person might expect. He only has Fox or some extremist right channels left to try his luck on next debate based on your theory but they are such a niche market for those networks it won't ever happen. Time to get back on the campaign trail.

If Trump really wants another debate then he needs to be realistic about the venue. He can babble all he wants about doing it on Fox, but nobody is listening in Harris world and it will never happen. So if he truly wants to have a serious chance of getting another debate then he needs to propose either CBS, CNN, CNBC, NBC, MSNBC, C-SPAN or PBS. Those are his options. He either gets real about the network or he can talk to the hand.