Harris, who won't do unscripted live interviews with pre-planted questions, desperately needs another debate. Why? Because the public still does not know what she is about. "Opportunity economy"? What does that even mean apart from printing more money and dropping into the black holes of democrat controlled urban cesspools.As for the rest, what tiny smattering there was of it, it's either not believable or just Trump's policies she is trying to sell as her own.

 

Post debate polling immediately after she won was favorable in terms of "she won," but as time has passed (and who knows better than her the significance of the passage of time?), it's clear that it did next to nothing to move the needle. In other words, she didn't change anybody's mind or motivate anyone to either vote or not to vote.

 

Harris's rallies are stacked with paid attendees who arrive in buses and the coverage is limited. Debates offer exponentially more exposure. So Trump is right to simply take a pass. Besides, the vice presidential debates are coming which might even provide some real insight into what "policies" a Harris administration has in store for the Amerian public and its millions of illegal invaders.

1 hour ago, RSD1 said:

I always find it entertaining how Trump apologizers only ever have one media source that they reference; The Fox News Comedy Channel. 😂

 

How do you know so much about Fox News?

 

Personally, I never watch Fox.

 

I prefer.....The Guardian.

 

And, also....I used to read a lot of....

 

 

 

NOTE4:  In case you wish to know....TROTSKY is one of my heroes.

 

 

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

You obviously have a slightly different point of view than I.

Point of view? Those were facts. How can you possibly see those facts any differently and even consider it a point of view? That's what's so bizarre about Trump supporters. Everything is based on blind hopium and nothing on reality. 
 

So as to gather a better understanding of your point of view, please give us your personal opinion on each of the following individuals:

 

Logan Paul

Andrew Tate

George Santos 

Russell Brand

Alex Jones 

Patrick Bet-David

Dan Bilzerian 

Tucker Carlson

Elon Musk

Sam Bankman Fried

Rudy Giuliani 

Harvey Weinstein  

Jared Kushner  

Steve Bannon  

Roger Stone

 

1 minute ago, RSD1 said:

Steve Bannon  

 

Wow.

This could take some time.....

 

Let us, please, first begin here....with Steve...

 

 

I watched this quite some time ago....

 

Such a dashing fellow....Steve....

 

Do you not agree?

 

 

8 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Wow.

This could take some time.....

 

Let us, please, first begin here....with Steve...

 

 

I watched this quite some time ago....

 

Such a dashing fellow....Steve....

 

Do you not agree?

 

 

Just one or two (to the point) sentences on each one of those bottom feeders would be adequate. 
 

But if you prefer to turn it into one of your goofy, whimsical, chaotic, and never ending word orgies, then save us the bandwidth and skip it. 
 

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

He won.

 

Trump is a winner.

 

He will always win.

And, he will win in November, too.

 

Mark my words.

 

 

"81,000,000 people fired him in 2020", the 'winners' Defendant chair is awaiting.......

5 hours ago, farang51 said:

Trump didn't have to agree to anything if he didn't want to. He knows better than most "when to walk away from the table", according to his book.

So you’re a Trump fan after all!  You take the time to read his books.

 

I promise.  Our secret.

If Trump's decision to not debate Kamala a second time stands, in my opinion, his chances of winning in November are slim to none.

 

One of the most under-reported crippling injuries that Kamala inflicted on Trump during the first debate was her clear articulation of Trump's inability to come to grips with reality. Whether you're talking about his insistence that his 2016 inaugural crowd size was bigger than MLK's Freedom March speech, his continued insistence that he won the 2020 election, his claim that "he had nothing to do" with the January 6th assault on the Capitol, or countless other examples  it's obvious that Trump has a less than firm grip on both reality and the truth.

 

In Dosteyvesky's Brothers Karamazov, the dying Elder Zosima says that "the biggest danger about not telling the truth is not that no one will believe you, but that eventually you yourself will no longer be able to tell the difference between truth and untruth." I think that is exactly what is happening to Trump. Without engaging in slinging pop psychology labels around ("he's a malignant narcissist") Kamala effectively articulated in lay terms why Trump is psychologically and cognitively unfit to hold office again. And I really think this was a latent mortal injury for Trump.

 

Trump knows the damage that was inflicted on him during the first debate, and likely is fully aware that the only way to undo the damage would be to successfully engage with her in a second debate. The problem is, having seen what she is capable of, he now knows that he would have a very hard time out-jousting her in a substantive debate over the issues. His only strategy would be to try to engage in bullying and name calling which will only entrench perceptions that he isn't fit for office.

9 hours ago, RSD1 said:

I think there is a very good chance that Harris will pardon him to help end divisions and reunite the country. It’s most likely his best play at this point. 

Unlikely. If anyone will do something like that it will be biden.

6 hours ago, RSD1 said:

Lol. They are like cartoon characters. In that case let's have a real rodeo and get Russel Brand, Piers Morgan and Tucker Carlson to do it. 🤮🤣

Let's go for fireworks at the next debate. I suggest Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow. Hannity asks all the questions to Harris and Maddow asks all the questions to Trump. That would be fun. 

6 hours ago, RSD1 said:

 

Always a winner?

 

Really? 
 

How about all his failed businesses?

 

How about all the bankruptcies?

 

How about the nearly $500 million in losses for penalties in the courts? 
 

How about being guilty of 34 criminal charges?

 

How about being guilty of being a sexual

offender?

How about being criminally indicted 4 times? 
 

How about being impeached twice?
 

And how about that loss to Biden in 2020?

 

OK, GG Lichtman, I've marked your words, but not in the way you are hoping. 

 

 

 

How about his net worth in the billions.  How about Trump Towers.  All private sector.

 

How about not taking the Presidential salary during his tenure.  Think Harris can do that, think again.

 

Beats the heck out of a Rehoboth Beach, De beach house any day.

2 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

If Trump's decision to not debate Kamala a second time stands, in my opinion, his chances of winning in November are slim to none.

 

One of the most under-reported crippling injuries that Kamala inflicted on Trump during the first debate was her clear articulation of Trump's inability to come to grips with reality. Whether you're talking about his insistence that his 2016 inaugural crowd size was bigger than MLK's Freedom March speech, his continued insistence that he won the 2020 election, his claim that "he had nothing to do" with the January 6th assault on the Capitol, or countless other examples  it's obvious that Trump has a less than firm grip on both reality and the truth.

 

In Dosteyvesky's Brothers Karamazov, the dying Elder Zosima says that "the biggest danger about not telling the truth is not that no one will believe you, but that eventually you yourself will no longer be able to tell the difference between truth and untruth." I think that is exactly what is happening to Trump. Without engaging in slinging pop psychology labels around ("he's a malignant narcissist") Kamala effectively articulated in lay terms why Trump is psychologically and cognitively unfit to hold office again. And I really think this was a latent mortal injury for Trump.

 

Trump knows the damage that was inflicted on him during the first debate, and likely is fully aware that the only way to undo the damage would be to successfully engage with her in a second debate. The problem is, having seen what she is capable of, he now knows that he would have a very hard time out-jousting her in a substantive debate over the issues. His only strategy would be to try to engage in bullying and name calling which will only entrench perceptions that he isn't fit for office.

And her policies at the debate were clear as …mud!  Or muffled out by her constant lies.

8 hours ago, farang51 said:

Despite what you believe, the moderaters in the past debates have been neutral, not only in the last two debates but going back many years. There will always be some viewers - on both sides - that believes the moderaters should have asked question they didn't ask or that they should have behaved different. But generally, they have been neutral.

 

A debate on Fox with opinion hosts will not be neutral. There may be hosts from the news side of Fox that can be neutral, but certainly not an opinion host like Hannity.

yeah right, sure they have been neutral!

4 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

yeah right, sure they have been neutral!

They called him out on really extreme lies. Boo hoo. 

3 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

They called him out on really extreme lies. Boo hoo. 

but nothing for Harris, they let her spew the fine people, bloodbath BS, and didn't push her when she didn't answer questions 

3 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

If Trump's decision to not debate Kamala a second time stands, in my opinion, his chances of winning in November are slim to none.

 

One of the most under-reported crippling injuries that Kamala inflicted on Trump during the first debate was her clear articulation of Trump's inability to come to grips with reality. Whether you're talking about his insistence that his 2016 inaugural crowd size was bigger than MLK's Freedom March speech, his continued insistence that he won the 2020 election, his claim that "he had nothing to do" with the January 6th assault on the Capitol, or countless other examples  it's obvious that Trump has a less than firm grip on both reality and the truth.

 

In Dosteyvesky's Brothers Karamazov, the dying Elder Zosima says that "the biggest danger about not telling the truth is not that no one will believe you, but that eventually you yourself will no longer be able to tell the difference between truth and untruth." I think that is exactly what is happening to Trump. Without engaging in slinging pop psychology labels around ("he's a malignant narcissist") Kamala effectively articulated in lay terms why Trump is psychologically and cognitively unfit to hold office again. And I really think this was a latent mortal injury for Trump.

 

Trump knows the damage that was inflicted on him during the first debate, and likely is fully aware that the only way to undo the damage would be to successfully engage with her in a second debate. The problem is, having seen what she is capable of, he now knows that he would have a very hard time out-jousting her in a substantive debate over the issues. His only strategy would be to try to engage in bullying and name calling which will only entrench perceptions that he isn't fit for office.

Brilliant post @Gecko123........says it all in a clear and concise way with no mud slinging and is right on the button. Thank you.

8 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Brilliant post @Gecko123........says it all in a clear and concise way with no mud slinging and is right on the button. Thank you.

 

He is slinging mud, he's saying Trump can't distinguish reality from fiction. Even if he said it with a nice Dostoevsky reference, which I agree was brilliant, he is nonetheless slinging mud.

 

He is also patently wrong. Trump's problem is not "what she is capable of". Kamala's debate performance was full of air, smirking and not altogether impressive, she evaded questions, lied almost as bad as Trump in a ludicrous way etc.

 

Trump's real problem is that even if he defeats her in one on one exchanges the anti-Trump media will claim Harris carried away a magnificent victory. So the only real way Trump could win a debate is if Harris totally fumbles the ball like Biden. In all other circumstances the media will declare Harris the winner, which is not good publicity. Another problem is the partisan moderators who only seek to embarass Trump on air, but not Harris.

 

So clearly not doing another debate is by far the best decision.

9 hours ago, G_Money said:

They would not debate him on his terms.  So he complied to their terms.  At least he engaged and didn’t walk away.  

 

Do you think Harris will comply to his terms if there was another debate?  I think not.  She knows the payback in a biased network and mods would be too much for her to handle.  She’ll walk away.

What are Trumps Terms, at least 50 Lies per hour?

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

He is slinging mud, he's saying Trump can't distinguish reality from fiction. Even if he said it with a nice Dostoevsky reference, which I agree was brilliant, he is nonetheless slinging mud.

 

He is also patently wrong. Trump's problem is not "what she is capable of". Kamala's debate performance was full of air, smirking and not altogether impressive, she evaded questions, lied almost as bad as Trump in a ludicrous way etc.

 

Trump's real problem is that even if he defeats her in one on one exchanges the anti-Trump media will claim Harris carried away a magnificent victory. So the only real way Trump could win a debate is if Harris totally fumbles the ball like Biden. In all other circumstances the media will declare Harris the winner, which is not good publicity. Another problem is the partisan moderators who only seek to embarass Trump on air, but not Harris.

 

So clearly not doing another debate is by far the best decision.

 

 

 

lied almost as bad

 

Seriously?

 

But good to see you acknowledge Trump's lies were 'worse' and more frequent......something many on here would be reluctant to concede.

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, UWEB said:

What are Trumps Terms, at least 50 Lies per hour?

 49 less lies than Harris’s.

There will be no 2nd term for you DT..........!

35 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

but nothing for Harris, they let her spew the fine people, bloodbath BS, and didn't push her when she didn't answer questions 

I couldn't see a reference to the both sides thing in the debate but it may be there. Trump saying if he doesn't get elected it's going to be a bloodbath for the country - noting it then as a decision about cars - is odd terminology - but I take your point .

Point is he made lots of other lies and dodgy comments that weren't picked up - Harris confiscating guns, claims around the lost election and voter fraud, etc. 

I think things like immigrants eating pets, migrant crime and his comments on abortion  are highly contentious and worthy of being picked up. If she made similar one off extreme claims I say she would have been  picked up. 

Harris offered another debate so she could call him chicken. She should not actually do it though. It would be hard to bait him into more stupid and the damage is already done.

 

By next month, after Smith lays out the evidence, he will be begging her for a debate on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow moderating.

"Making cat's safe again" ball caps coming soon...........

Couldn't really call the ABC thing a debate, biased against the old geezer with the others contribution pulling faces and laughing her way through.

42 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

 

lied almost as bad

 

Seriously?

 

But good to see you acknowledge Trump's lies were 'worse' and more frequent......something many on here would be reluctant to concede.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately the "debate" was heavy on fact distortion and outright lies. From both sides.

 

Trump accusing Biden and Harris of causing inflation was distortion and a lie, because even the most superficially informed person would have been aware that inflation was a global problem. He could have outlined the measures taken by them made inflation worse. But he claimed they caused inflation which nobody in their right mind would believe.

 

Harris claimed Trump was responsible for the pandemic, which frankly was outright ludicrous. She was not called on it, presumably because the lie was so obvious. Just like with Trump's inflation charge.

 

Trump lied about Harris being a Marxist. He was not called on it. She's left and liberal, obviously not a marxist. 

 

Harris claimed Agenda 2025 was Trump's agenda. A complete utter lie she was not called on. Even though she made the allegation several times.

 

Trump claimed Ukraine and the Israel wars would not have started with him in power, if not an outright lie still extremely implausible.

 

Harris claimed Trump opposed IVF, a total lie. Not called on it.

 

Trump claimed they sent Kamala Harris to negotiate peace between Ukraine and Russia days before the war. They wouldn't have sent Kamala Harris to negotiate peace in a Kindergarten. She was sent to meet Zelensky to give him intelligence and promises of weaons, to ensure the war would happen because American wanted the war to weaken Russia. Another lie Trump was not callled on.

 

Kamala harris claimed she always supported private health care. This even after the moderator told her she supported Bernie Sanders push to abolish private medical health care. A blatant lie. Not callled.

 

Trump claimed China paid Biden millions of dollars. News to me.

 

Anyway. Trump was in control until the pet faux pas. He was called out. Then he seemed to debate more with David Muir than with Harris. Both the moderators and Harris made a concerted effort to make the debate about Trump's past record, the capitol, the court cases, and Trump obliged each time. He should have made it  more about her, like he did that in the last exchange where Trump was brilliant and clearly won the exchange. 

 

But he was floundering for 45 minutes before that waffling about his own past behaviour, which was not helpful. That's why I say it was a tie, because Trump won the beginning and the end, and Harris won the middle by deflecting all questions and instead getting Trump to talk about his own issues.

 

The intervention of the moderators was absolutely extraordinary though, you really would have thought it's the ABC moderator vs Trump debate at one point, not the presidential debate.

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Unfortunately the "debate" was heavy on fact distortion and outright lies. From both sides.

 

Trump accusing Biden and Harris of causing inflation was distortion and a lie, because even the most superficially informed person would have been aware that inflation was a global problem. He could have outlined the measures taken by them made inflation worse. But he claimed they caused inflation which nobody in their right mind would believe.

 

Harris claimed Trump was responsible for the pandemic, which frankly was outright ludicrous. She was not called on it, presumably because the lie was so obvious. Just like with Trump's inflation charge.

 

Trump lied about Harris being a Marxist. He was not called on it. She's left and liberal, obviously not a marxist. 

 

Harris claimed Agenda 2025 was Trump's agenda. A complete utter lie she was not called on. Even though she made the allegation several times.

 

Trump claimed Ukraine and the Israel wars would not have started with him in power, if not an outright lie still extremely implausible.

 

Harris claimed Trump opposed IVF, a total lie. Not called on it.

 

Trump claimed they sent Kamala Harris to negotiate peace between Ukraine and Russia days before the war. They wouldn't have sent Kamala Harris to negotiate peace in a Kindergarten. She was sent to meet Zelensky to give him intelligence and promises of weaons, to ensure the war would happen because American wanted the war to weaken Russia. Another lie Trump was not callled on.

 

Kamala harris claimed she always supported private health care. This even after the moderator told her she supported Bernie Sanders push to abolish private medical health care. A blatant lie. Not callled.

 

Trump claimed China paid Biden millions of dollars. News to me.

 

Anyway. Trump was in control until the pet faux pas. He was called out. Then he seemed to debate more with David Muir than with Harris. Both the moderators and Harris made a concerted effort to make the debate about Trump's past record, the capitol, the court cases, and Trump obliged each time. He should have made it  more about her, like he did that in the last exchange where Trump was brilliant and clearly won the exchange. 

 

But he was floundering for 45 minutes before that waffling about his own past behaviour, which was not helpful. That's why I say it was a tie, because Trump won the beginning and the end, and Harris won the middle by deflecting all questions and instead getting Trump to talk about his own issues.

 

The intervention of the moderators was absolutely extraordinary though, you really would have thought its the ABC moderator vs Trump debate at one point, not the presidential debate.

 

Your last line.....presumably as these debate rules are tied down well beforehand they were correct in pulling Trump up for his lies?........but your response would be that they were not even handed in that respect??

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Harris offered another debate so she could call him chicken. She should not actually do it though. It would be hard to bait him into more stupid and the damage is already done.

He can and will be "more stupid" because that is the way he is and has always been, only now his mental decline is there for all to see........and is getting worse!

Really no point from an independent perspective it is rig majority of media where is the honor of having an open debate.

Not supporting Trump but Demo now have presented a new package she didnt answer one question just more civil in her approach I felt she shine in interview not debate handle herself better that is all she had to do since voter cant stand the guy! 

On record Trump wins but his big mouth and ego will be the cause of his own demise. Let him talk and ramble is all Demo has to do. 

No one answers the questions it is a disgrace.

34 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I couldn't see a reference to the both sides thing in the debate but it may be there. Trump saying if he doesn't get elected it's going to be a bloodbath for the country - noting it then as a decision about cars - is odd terminology - but I take your point .

Point is he made lots of other lies and dodgy comments that weren't picked up - Harris confiscating guns, claims around the lost election and voter fraud, etc. 

I think things like immigrants eating pets, migrant crime and his comments on abortion  are highly contentious and worthy of being picked up. If she made similar one off extreme claims I say she would have been  picked up. 

Trump challenged her on it, but not the mods, there are more lies from her, fracking, guns, troops in active duty, she totally avoided taking responsibility for the afghan withdrawal but wasn't pushed further on it. there were many others. the mods were certainly not neutral, neither were the so called 'fact' checkers, however they are m,ostly left/dem voter owned or staffed.