https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-challenges-biden-debate-super-tuesday-1234982530/
Donald Trump challenged President Joe Biden to a debate after ducking head on confrontations with his GOP rivals for months.
Remember when Musk and Zuckerberg were gonna fight? Feels a lot like that, but older and somehow even less interesting.
I’m old enough to remember that we had actual debates between opposing candidates, but I’m in my 40s and not interesting
Yep. I remember the McCain vs Obama debates. I remember thinking their policies were pretty similar, and either would probably govern decently enough. I wasn't a Dem or Rep, though I had voted mostly blue thus far.
But then McCain picked Palin as his running mate, and I saw the VP debates. And holy shit did that make the choice easy, and Red has just been getting more and more extreme ever since.
I think Republicans saw how popular Palin was, not just in spite of, but because she was so fucking dumb. Then they realized their voters didn't really give a shit about policies, character, or the ability to govern. Their media bubble created the perfect atmosphere for a person like Trump to get elected. And they clearly have no problems with it, so they'll continue the trend long after Trump's cheeseburger clogged heart gives out.
The woman who was yelling that “Obama [was] an Arab” to McCain should have made it clear how screwed up the electorate was getting. McCains response was appropriate, but useless in the face of his racists voters.
Do you think Trump's spray-tan would come loose in chunks, or would it stay as a single vaguely face-shaped film?
by debate he means he will childishly shout over anyone he's on stage with constant bullshit and juvenile rhetoric - no thanks. having seen trump in debates I honestly question anyone silly enough to try, he'll never 'debate', he just gish gallops bullshit until his minders come to change his diapers.
Trump loving America is not the majority of America. It's not even half. It's just the "voting age" almost-halfz which is what, 30% of all Americans?
The reason Trump won in 2016 is because many people who didn't like Hilary didn't vote. And even so, Hilary got 2 million more votes than Trump.
Then Trump lost to Biden. If he was so popular, he would have won a second term.
So, no. Please don't think that the majority of Americans are deplorables.
But what does all that count for when people are busier finding excuses to not vote for Biden than to vote against the orange Putin?
That doesn't change the fact that Trump didn't get reelected (which is almost always the norm in U.S. politics) because people realized their mistake. Biden ain't a saint, but at least he's not a scorched-Earth asshole like Trump, and most Americans know that.
Definitely not guaranteed, but again, I think most Americans learned their lesson with the Hilary/Trump fiasco. They thought Hilary winning was a given, it was guaranteed and, well, it wasn't. So the America people wised up.
When you hear that "people are losing faith in Biden," you have to be reaaaally careful as to who is driving that narrative. Hint: the voices are not coming from within the room.
I don't understand the point of your comment, but okay. The reality of the matter is, most American people abhor Trump, so they will make sure he stays a loser.
Yet you (America) still vote this guy in. Somethings rotten and wrong over there and you guys better figure it out.
We can't pull a France. The police are already trigger happy and willing to work with non-police that have guns and just as trigger happy. You take charge for a bit and have your country become more influential ty.
Did you though? He's running again with a good chance to become president, again.
I can only speak for myself but I am sick and tired of the fate of the world hanging on whatever mentally deranged and unhinged extremist the US might elect every few years. Aren't you supposed to be the oldest democracy in the world? I expect as much from countries like Russia or China but the US should do better.
The world needs the US to do better.
Again, Trump is not president. He lost. He didn't win a reelection. He couldn't even, as the most powerful man on Earth (supposedly), overturn the elections. He will never see the inside of the White House again. Just make sure your vote counts.
In Germany we've something we call "wehrhafte Demokratie" which basically means a democracy capable of defending itself. There are measures in place (in theory) that prevent parties that aim to destroy the democracy from getting into power by winning elections.
Someone who openly admits his goal is to end democracy shouldn't be able to run for president. It's what happened in Germany back in 1933. The NSDAP won the general election and took over the government via democratic means and within weeks destroyed the democracy. Never again (hopefully)
Dude it's not me, it's them. There's a weird division in this country and for some reason there are people on the other side.
Bro I'm a leftist and I'm voting for Trump this time. If you want to win, don't run a genocider. Myself and other leftists have a few very hard and fast rules, and genocide is one of them. Id rather have J6 #2 than trail of tears #2
What the fuck mate.
Trump literally just said "time to finish the problem" regarding the Israeli bombardment of Gaza.
I know it's a shit choice, but it's the choice between the status quo of global imperialism, or global imperialism AND domestic fascism.
I don't want either of these things, but I really don't want to get executed at home.
Okay but we all know we can't believe anything trump says, especially anything he only says once. He didn't even build the wall last time, and he said that thousands of times. What he did do is get us out of Afghanistan. So yes, he MIGHT keep doing the genocide, but Biden definitely will. Trump is the only president in 50 years (maybe 100 or 150?) to not start a new war. So if we're going off what he each man actually DID, trump is the obvious choice, because he didn't do a genocide and did end a war.
Trump said he'd make the courts partisan and he did exactly that. Now we have some of the most extreme right wing federal courts, and an extremist christofascist supreme court.
Alabama declared that IVF embryos are children. A federal court is arguing that FDA overstepped in approval of mifeprostone, an abortifacient and uterotonic medication that is considered essential to first world medical care. Roe v. Wade overturned. Gay marriage on the docket. Interracial marriage in their sights.
Do you really want to have Gilead at home?
Okay, so nominate a guy who isn't genocidal. Leftists arent going to vote for a genocider, so give us somebody we can vote for. If I knew for a fact Trump would overturn roe v wade, and also attempt another coup, id still vote for him, because he didn't do a genocide. Like I've said, I'll take J6 part 2 over trail of tears part 2 every time.
We are NOT asking that much. Literally all we want is a guy who hasn't already committed a genocide. If y'all can't give that to us, it is not OUR fault when roe v wade gets overturned, it's yours. You didn't give us a choice in the matter. Waving off genocide warning signs is exactly how Germany got Hitler, and if the American voter does NOTHING else, the least we can possibly do for the world is not have a second Holocaust.
I don't care how it happens, but I think I speak for all true leftists when I say we will never vote for a genocider, period. I agree with you that trump is awful, but the Democrats have made him the only valid choice, and so I will be voting for the only candidate that good people are allowed to vote for. If Dems actually want to defeat Trump, they'll put up someone else. Personally I don't actually think they give a shit, cause the spice must flow.
I'm not even saying they have to oppose the genocide. Just stop funding it. Stop making me directly complicit.
We all said never again, and some of us meant it.
No wait, you have to call me a Russian troll first, or else you haven't finished deflecting an argument you've already lost. Do you even know the first thing about being a lib online?
You may want to brush up on some reading comprehension. I didn't offer an argument. I just pointed out that you are a liar.
A Trump presidency will lead to an environmental disaster on a massive scale, we'll basically be a petro state with a dictator.
https://lemmy.world/post/12780782
Trump is a "genocider" and he'll expand upon the genocide already being committed, while cutting all attempts to provide aid to Gaza, closing our borders to refugees and torpedoing any chance of a free and fair elections again.
If you vote trump because he's not currently the president during this current iteration of Israel+Palestine violence, then you are a fucking moron. That's a collective "you" by the way, no one in particular.
He might do that. But we all know that trump saying something has a very low correlation with him actually doing it. He ended the war in Afghanistan, a war which Biden spent 8 years overseeing and not ending. And I don't think trump can personally gain from the genocide continuing, so I don't see a reason he wouldn't end this too. Trump has a history of peace, his rhetoric isn't as bad as Bidens, what he actually says he will do isn't as bad as what Biden says he will do, AND... he isn't currently the guy doing it. I pretty much only care about this issue at this point, and I just don't see trump actually being worse than Biden on it. Biden's handlers care about maintaining the military industrial complex. Trump's handlers care about scamming the government $1 million at a time. If the end result is Trump steals a billion dollars and attempts a coup again, that is a fantastic outcome for us.
He might do that.
He might. He also has a history of enacting racist and anti-muslim policies to throw meat to his moronic base of chuds. He also has a history of backing Israel, such as backing them creating illegal settlements in the west bank. So I believe trump, and his republican ilk will jump at the chance to use our military and financial institutions to harm Palestinians, as the historically have for the last 60+ years.
But we all know that trump saying something has a very low correlation with him actually doing it.
All the more reason not to trust him as the president.
He ended the war in Afghanistan, a war which Biden spent 8 years overseeing and not ending.
No, he didn't. He made the same commitment to end the war, after his presidency, that every president since Bush has made. Only Biden was willing to take the actual blame for pulling out of that quagmire.
Trump has a history of peace
No he doesn't. He ordered a drone strike on an Iranian general in another sovereign country on a diplomatic mission. Mainly because he wanted to brag about killing "terrorists", since the Obama admin got to take down Bin-Laden.
I pretty much only care about this issue at this point...
And yet you have selected the almost universally recognized, absofuckinglute worst possible person to end this peacefully.
Please stop. Just stop. Trump has never made anything better, ever. Period. Full stop. Don't vote for him.
Afaik, Biden could not possibly have gotten out of Afghanistan in 2-3 months without actual moves that were made by the trump admin.
Idk how the drone strike issue lines up, but I mean, at least the ones trump did hit military personnel. Obama went after all of: an American citizen, a wedding, and a hospital. Trump could certainly be worse than Obama on that though.
It's not like I want to vote for trump. I'm just obviously going to pick the doofus con artist over the guy currently committing a genocide. I would vote for trump over Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot too, to be clear. Yeah, trump might just keep doing it. But he also might not. And we know Joe ain't gonna do shit to end it.
I would pay money to see Jon Stewart moderate a debate. I mean seriously, like pay per view.
There's zero chance his handlers will let him debate anyone, let alone Biden. I'm not saying Biden is fantastic or anything, it's just that Trump is unable to string coherent thoughts together anymore. It's never been his forté, but these days? Sheesh. Dude's not making any sense at all and can barely read from the teleprompter. Intelligently coming up with retorts on the fly in a debate? I doubt he'll even understand why Obama's suddenly an elderly white guy.
I feel like my last comment is easily misinterpreted. I'm NOT saying any of the three are at all the same. Those are comparison ">"s not pipeline ">"s
So this is a "I've decided I hate you and there's nothing you can say to change that" situation? You know you'd have an easier time if you stuck to attacking your enemies?
He's cowardly backed away from all debates. Him saying this doesn't mean this has changed. It's just posturing. He never would have an actual fair head-to-head debate with Biden. He'll either say anything fair is unfair so he won't participate or hell say he can't make it for some reason.
Trump doesn't debate anyone ever. He shows up and steamrolls the other person with his version of reality.
And when he's done, he flips the table, shits on it, and then declares victory...
...and his base fucking eats it up with a -smile.-
It's baffling.
The kind of people that eat up his “debating” style are people who treat the idea of an open debate of concepts the same way - that is to say that they’d be flipping tables and shitting everywhere themselves. They’re uneducated and hold unqualified and unjustifiable positions, and the only way to maintain those positions is to simply ignore or reject all rhetoric to the contrary.
They eat it up because that’s exactly how they’d act when faced with reason, logic, facts or statistics.
That's what really throws me for a loop. There are a lot of dumb people that think he's smart, but there are also a lot of smart people that buy into it too... Is fear really that powerful? It is, I know... But damn...
But were they debates? Can we really call them that?
I know that's what the forum called for, but I saw zero debating.
Jerry Springer episodes had more debating going on.
I mean, that's a nice opinion and all, but yeah. Technically yes, those were debates. That one of the debaters was poorly prepared is another thing.
In a professional car race, if one of the drivers decides to hit reverse se whole time, is it fair to tell the one that plays by the rules "oh no, you don't deserve the winner title because that wasn't even a race"?
If there were only two cars would it have been a race?
It was called a race, people expected to see a race, but no race took place.
It was not a race.
Yes. It would have been called a race.
Let's give you a better example, then. A boxing match.
One of the boxers just runs around trying to touch the other contender's butt.
He gets disqualified.
The other boxer wins the match.
What the public (including you) thinks of it is irrelevant. The judges were there and ruled who won the match per the scenario presented.
Let me try it this way...
If you had a coworker who got a new dog. They were excited and told everyone in the office about him.
Couple months later this coworker throws a party. When you get to their house, they excitedly show you the new dog, but when what you see is clearly a cat.
Which are you more likely to think? "What an interesting looking dog." or "Sir, that is a cat."
He said it was a dog, and everyone attending was expecting to see a dog. It wasn't a dog.
How about this scenario:
You have a disagreement with your neighbor about the property line. You mutually agree to settle it with a debate.
Your neighbor spends the entire time talking over you, sidestepping virtually every point you make, blatantly lying, personally insulting you and airing grievances.
You participate in good faith and the moderator decides that the property line should follow your plans.
Did you and your neighbor engage in a debate?
Here is an opinion: Donald Trump is neither classically or emotionally intelligent enough to engage in an actual, by definition, debate.
Your first analogy is flawed. If we compare it to the boxing example, it's as if the two contenders played poker in the middle of the ring. Then the audience would be like "sir, this is a poker tournament." So, no. Not the same.
The second one is still a debate. The neighbor is deranged, but there is a procedure, the neighbor didn't follow the usual rules, and it didn't help him at all.
Well, like I said, that's your opinion. A bit dense in my own opinion, but if it's yours, it's yours.
Anywhere AND anyplace? Stable genius. Given his bouts with slurring and dementia I'd like to see him get shredded by Biden.
Nobody wants to see 2 old men ramble incoherently at each other. Right now trump is the more cognitively capable of the 2, unfortunately. Though it's certainly close.
No way dude. Biden's always had the speech thing. Trump has recently gotten even worse than usual. Called his wife Mercedes. Called Biden Obama. Decided to run for president.
Compare his speaking now to the 2020 debates. Very clearly worse, this isn't the same thing.
If everyone is calling you that here, maybe you should go back to truth social like the good little lap dog you are.
If every liberal on the internet calls me a Russian agent when I am not, you think that speaks poorly of me, and not the liberal ideology as a whole? Interesting. Like, when I get that comment, I immediately dismiss the speaker as unintelligent and incurious, because they instantly jump to trying to put me in a box they can ignore, rather than interrogate their own beliefs. Correct beliefs do not need to be shielded from interrogation, they will actually be strengthened by interrogation. In my ideal world, every single person fully understands socialism, because then most people would agree with it and make it happen.
Calling me a Russian agent is very much shielding oneself from my beliefs. If people actually believed that I was a Russian agent, they'd have to believe that all leftists are. But they don't actually believe that, liberals just need to dismiss all leftists as being right wing trolls, because otherwise we would challenge their ideology too drastically for them to keep holding onto it. And there's nothing liberals cling to more desperately than the status quo being acceptable, because liberals fundamentally do not want to change the status quo. So as a result, every single leftist must be dismissed as an individual bad actor, totally disconnected from a larger ideology beyond their desire to destroy democracy.
I understand why y'all do it, but I beg of you, please stop doing it and simply interrogate your own beliefs instead.
If you're spreading disinformation that benefits Russia, it doesn't even matter what your ideologies are. You're still spreading disinformation on behalf of Russia.
You can paint any moral picture you want, but that's the bottom line.
I don't spread disinformation, I spread information. It just tends to be information that conflicts with the official US propaganda, given how much the US media lies. Who is benefitting from the truth being spread should be completely irrelevant, we spread it because it's true, not because it makes us look good. If y'all want me to spread more favorable information to America, maybe America should start making the truth be more favorable to them.
American liberals call me a Russian agent purely because I spread the truth, and they don't like the truths I speak. Let that sink in. I'm telling y'all the emperor has no clothes, and y'all call me an agent of the emperor's enemies.
For instance, you ever heard of unit 731 in Japan? Atrocities on par with the Holocaust done to unsuspecting Chinese civilians, and America gave the perpetrators immunity in their version of Nuremberg in order to obtain their biochem research and keep it out of the soviet's hands.
Is this Russian disinformation? I mean it sure makes America look bad, so it must be, right? But it's also literally true.
Why did you respond to this post and not this one?
https://lemm.ee/comment/9957834
Is it because your a disingenuous chuckle fuck fooling no one?
Survey says YES
PS no one is reading that scree. No one cares.
I'm baffled that the republicans thought putting a senile proven fraudster, insurrectionist and sexual predator with a bunch of pending court cases against him was a good idea..
I'm not from the US either but I can't deal with that piece of shit. If he wins, I'm getting a dumbphone and give up on the internet and any other form of news.
i dunno. The news was a lot more entertaining with Trump in office. When he left, they went back to all statist propaganda all the time. I mean, yeah, they used Trump as statist propaganda too, but it was fucking funny and self defeating. What i get now is the news telling us it's good that Trudeau is making it illegal to say what you think.
If Biden does debate Trump, he needs to hit Trump with his rape conviction AND the $83 M judgement, tax evasion by fraud that will cost Trump another $450 M, and the multitude of civil suits that are coming. Being president does not affect civil lawsuits. And when Trump loses AGAIN, he is looking at years of prison, at the absolute minimum sentences. Hit Trump again and again for always being a loser. Remember how Obama roasted Trump? Biden can remind Trump how he was owned by Obama. Biden needs to hit Trump with the volcano roast. Trump is an emotional baby. Once Trump gets overwrought, he will be a babbling a word salad of gibberish.
That would be great if he was actually able to debate. Instead, he'll interrupt and yell, sling insults, and not answer any questions. Biden should 100% not debate him. He should say "I'm not going to debate with a felon, or anyone that is responsible for an insurrection"
Oh, Biden should agree to debate. But with rules to cut Trump’s mic when it isn’t his turn to talk.
Trump would never agree to that.
Then the problem becomes "The evil dems wouldn't even let me talk, they just cut my mic. I couldn't say anything" Aaaaaand his cult shines up their pitchforks.
They cut his mic in later 2016 debates, as I recall.
He will make those claims no matter what. When he refuses to debate, he will blame democrat rules or some such nonsense.
