Donald Trump
Comments
-
I think you confuse what you want to hear with what will get him elected. If you were in the US, you would vote for Biden, so he doesn't need to please you, he needs to please other people.rick_chasey said:
No. It is however, not just a slanging match to see who can land a better insult.TheBigBean said:
Yes it is. Were you expecting an intellectual debate involving Trump?rick_chasey said:
This sounds so school playground.TheBigBean said:Trump said that Biden is on performance enhancing drugs. The best Biden could do was laugh and say no comment. Seems like an open goal to me, he's just been accused of performing so well, the only explanation is drugs. Meanwhile, Trump has not done well.
It is about persuading the voters you are a better candidate and that it is worth spending time and effort to go out and vote (which is a genuine faff in the states - big queues, hassle, etc).
So, I think it's fair to say for Biden, the best tactic is doing whatever it takes to get your voters out - not least as he's currently leading the polls.
I think we all agree Trump is the best motivator to get people voting, but they need to trust you can do it, so it's about getting that message across.
"I can restore some normality here and you should be confident I can, but not so confident that you think I have it in the bag, and if you need reminded, genuinely, look how awful this guy is - do you really want this another 4 years?" is basically what he needs to get across.
I think insulting Trump doesn't really help much.
Plus, it was Trump dishing out the insults, I just think it was an open goal, and a response along the lines of "Glad he thinks my performance is so good that drugs is the only explanation" was easy.0 -
BB if it was up to me that would talk exclusively policy and would be penalised with reduced talking time if they wandered off topic or off policy.
It's not what I want to hear, but I don't know how getting into petty comebacks and insults gets your vote out if you're Biden.0 -
He doesn't have a choice he has been asked the question, so has to respond. It's the life of a politician even without Trump. The policy questions are the hard ones, these are the easy ones that he should lap up.rick_chasey said:BB if it was up to me that would talk exclusively policy and would be penalised with reduced talking time if they wandered off topic or off policy.
It's not what I want to hear, but I don't know how getting into petty comebacks and insults gets your vote out if you're Biden.
0 -
0
-
I get that people did not like her but the explanations never made any sense, it felt a bit like Brexit that it was an emotional decision that they then tried to justify.rick_chasey said:
I rate her but she seems to get a lot of people very riled up, including posters on here. If you compare her turnout versus Obama it's pretty stark. she did not get her vote out, *at all*surrey_commuter said:
I still don't see why she was so bad.rick_chasey said:
Is he though.surrey_commuter said:
You need to see it as getting the vote out, and Trump is good at firing up his supporters enough to get up and votebriantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
A reasonable amount - they seem to nudge the polls in one way or other.Jezyboy said:
How much importance do you place on these debates?rick_chasey said:Ugh, glad it's not me prepping Biden.
I can't think of anything that I can picture working.
The bits I watched of the debates with Hillary were god awful on all sides. She still won the popular vote...
The whole point of the Lincoln Project stuff is not to change entrenched minds, but to nudge the few percent of the people in crucial states who voted for Trump last time who did so because they wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton (for whatever reason). Given that 70k votes swung it from Trump, because of the peculiarity of the Electoral College, that seems a sensible strategy.
This time I can't see any waverers opting for Trump as an 'unknown quantity': he's had four years to deliver his unicorns, and all he's got is a few mangy gerbils, a couple of which sit on top of his head.
Is it not just Hilary was even worse?
I had women argue that she was as bad for women's rights as Trump because she let Bill get away with sh@gging around.0 -
It's a red rag to certain posters on here, but I do think there a material level of misogyny didn't help her cause.surrey_commuter said:
I get that people did not like her but the explanations never made any sense, it felt a bit like Brexit that it was an emotional decision that they then tried to justify.rick_chasey said:
I rate her but she seems to get a lot of people very riled up, including posters on here. If you compare her turnout versus Obama it's pretty stark. she did not get her vote out, *at all*surrey_commuter said:
I still don't see why she was so bad.rick_chasey said:
Is he though.surrey_commuter said:
You need to see it as getting the vote out, and Trump is good at firing up his supporters enough to get up and votebriantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
A reasonable amount - they seem to nudge the polls in one way or other.Jezyboy said:
How much importance do you place on these debates?rick_chasey said:Ugh, glad it's not me prepping Biden.
I can't think of anything that I can picture working.
The bits I watched of the debates with Hillary were god awful on all sides. She still won the popular vote...
The whole point of the Lincoln Project stuff is not to change entrenched minds, but to nudge the few percent of the people in crucial states who voted for Trump last time who did so because they wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton (for whatever reason). Given that 70k votes swung it from Trump, because of the peculiarity of the Electoral College, that seems a sensible strategy.
This time I can't see any waverers opting for Trump as an 'unknown quantity': he's had four years to deliver his unicorns, and all he's got is a few mangy gerbils, a couple of which sit on top of his head.
Is it not just Hilary was even worse?
I had women argue that she was as bad for women's rights as Trump because she let Bill get away with sh@gging around.0 -
Ways to beat Trump in a debate
- Wear a mask
- Use credible facts
- Smile at him when he asks something stupid
- Ask him about his tax returns
Oh an put a ramp on the stage.0 - Wear a mask
-
rick_chasey said:
It's a red rag to certain posters on here, but I do think there a material level of misogyny didn't help her cause.surrey_commuter said:
I get that people did not like her but the explanations never made any sense, it felt a bit like Brexit that it was an emotional decision that they then tried to justify.rick_chasey said:
I rate her but she seems to get a lot of people very riled up, including posters on here. If you compare her turnout versus Obama it's pretty stark. she did not get her vote out, *at all*surrey_commuter said:
I still don't see why she was so bad.rick_chasey said:
Is he though.surrey_commuter said:
You need to see it as getting the vote out, and Trump is good at firing up his supporters enough to get up and votebriantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
A reasonable amount - they seem to nudge the polls in one way or other.Jezyboy said:
How much importance do you place on these debates?rick_chasey said:Ugh, glad it's not me prepping Biden.
I can't think of anything that I can picture working.
The bits I watched of the debates with Hillary were god awful on all sides. She still won the popular vote...
The whole point of the Lincoln Project stuff is not to change entrenched minds, but to nudge the few percent of the people in crucial states who voted for Trump last time who did so because they wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton (for whatever reason). Given that 70k votes swung it from Trump, because of the peculiarity of the Electoral College, that seems a sensible strategy.
This time I can't see any waverers opting for Trump as an 'unknown quantity': he's had four years to deliver his unicorns, and all he's got is a few mangy gerbils, a couple of which sit on top of his head.
Is it not just Hilary was even worse?
I had women argue that she was as bad for women's rights as Trump because she let Bill get away with sh@gging around.
I think there are a lot of US voters who share Trump's dislike of clever women. But she also had the Bill Clinton baggage, and didn't share Obama's appeal to black voters.
That said, she still got 3m more votes than Trump.0 -
Day 2 of the NYT tax story.
He was losing absolutely shitloads of money right before The Apprentice. Made loads of money from The Apprentice, both directly, from product placement, and endorsements (including $15m for endorsing mattresses?), among them ponzi schemes, worthless get-rich-quick schemes etc. The only thing that he has done that has made money is licensing his name. Everything he's actually bought and run has lost money.
Nothing very new except for the actual numbers.0 -
My main takeaway from it was how little tax the incredibly rich can legitimately get away with.kingstongraham said:Day 2 of the NYT tax story.
He was losing absolutely shitloads of money right before The Apprentice. Made loads of money from The Apprentice, both directly, from product placement, and endorsements (including $15m for endorsing mattresses?), among them ponzi schemes, worthless get-rich-quick schemes etc. The only thing that he has done that has made money is licensing his name. Everything he's actually bought and run has lost money.
Nothing very new except for the actual numbers.
I mean, $750 a year for someone with that much money? That's remarkable.0 -
In late 2016 an awful lot of Americans considered Hilary (and Bill) should have been in jail for corruption, and that she was therefore totally unelectable.rick_chasey said:
It's a red rag to certain posters on here, but I do think there a material level of misogyny didn't help her cause.surrey_commuter said:
I get that people did not like her but the explanations never made any sense, it felt a bit like Brexit that it was an emotional decision that they then tried to justify.rick_chasey said:
I rate her but she seems to get a lot of people very riled up, including posters on here. If you compare her turnout versus Obama it's pretty stark. she did not get her vote out, *at all*surrey_commuter said:
I still don't see why she was so bad.rick_chasey said:
Is he though.surrey_commuter said:
You need to see it as getting the vote out, and Trump is good at firing up his supporters enough to get up and votebriantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
A reasonable amount - they seem to nudge the polls in one way or other.Jezyboy said:
How much importance do you place on these debates?rick_chasey said:Ugh, glad it's not me prepping Biden.
I can't think of anything that I can picture working.
The bits I watched of the debates with Hillary were god awful on all sides. She still won the popular vote...
The whole point of the Lincoln Project stuff is not to change entrenched minds, but to nudge the few percent of the people in crucial states who voted for Trump last time who did so because they wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton (for whatever reason). Given that 70k votes swung it from Trump, because of the peculiarity of the Electoral College, that seems a sensible strategy.
This time I can't see any waverers opting for Trump as an 'unknown quantity': he's had four years to deliver his unicorns, and all he's got is a few mangy gerbils, a couple of which sit on top of his head.
Is it not just Hilary was even worse?
I had women argue that she was as bad for women's rights as Trump because she let Bill get away with sh@gging around.0 -
I keep seeing this, particularly from yourself. Have you read up on why the Founding Fathers decided on the Electoral College system rather than simply going with a popular vote?briantrumpet said:That said, she still got 3m more votes than Trump.
1 -
rick_chasey said:
My main takeaway from it was how little tax the incredibly rich can legitimately get away with.kingstongraham said:Day 2 of the NYT tax story.
He was losing absolutely shitloads of money right before The Apprentice. Made loads of money from The Apprentice, both directly, from product placement, and endorsements (including $15m for endorsing mattresses?), among them ponzi schemes, worthless get-rich-quick schemes etc. The only thing that he has done that has made money is licensing his name. Everything he's actually bought and run has lost money.
Nothing very new except for the actual numbers.
I mean, $750 a year for someone with that much money? That's remarkable.
Is that just Income Tax though rather than total personal tax?
It is still a ridiculously small sum whichever way.0 -
Hilary Clinton is accused of lacking charisma but it's difficult to disentangle that and the difficulty in appealing to the public as a leader whilst being female.
It's more straightforward with men - they are compared to other men - we have a history of male presidents so they don't have to overcome that conscious or subconscious difficulty we may have with a female in a leadership position.
Biden doesn't seem to me to be particularly charismatic - maybe his age has something to do with it but I can't help but feel if he had Reagan's personality he'd absolutely destroy Trump. As it is Biden seems to have neither the personality nor the programme to really enthuse voters - his appeal seems to rely on being a more sensible person to have in charge than Trump.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Yes. It doesn't mean they were right though.coopster_the_1st said:
I keep seeing this, particularly from yourself. Have you read up on why the Founding Fathers decided on the Electoral College system rather than simply going with a popular vote?briantrumpet said:That said, she still got 3m more votes than Trump.
0 -
Laughter seems to only make the democrats feel good for a moment.First.Aspect said:Would repeatedly laughing at Trump help?
He's pretty thin skinned.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I quite liked the line Gary Linekar tweeted.
He paid 100x more for his haircut than he had in taxes.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It was a compromise but in any case they didn't envisage it working as it does with only 2 realistic candidates. Fair to say the system as it works now has emerged over time rather than was designed to be as it is.bompington said:
Yes. It doesn't mean they were right though.coopster_the_1st said:
I keep seeing this, particularly from yourself. Have you read up on why the Founding Fathers decided on the Electoral College system rather than simply going with a popular vote?briantrumpet said:That said, she still got 3m more votes than Trump.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
He also paid more tax in foreign countries. MEGA!tailwindhome said:I quite liked the line Gary Linekar tweeted.
He paid 100x more for his haircut than he had in taxes.
Making Elsewhere Great Again.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tax-returns-nyt-overseas-b672332.htmlThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
They anticipated a multi candidate system where the electors cast two votes for president and vice president, and the one with a majority of votes was president, and the one with second most was vice president. It didn't work.coopster_the_1st said:
I keep seeing this, particularly from yourself. Have you read up on why the Founding Fathers decided on the Electoral College system rather than simply going with a popular vote?briantrumpet said:That said, she still got 3m more votes than Trump.
Even with an electoral college system, you don't need this one where it's an all or nothing in 48 of the states. That wasn't what was designed.0 -
Big news on debate day from the Trump family:
0 -
Benghazi, Email servers, Stand by my man...morstar said:
2016 was a diehards election.rick_chasey said:
I rate her but she seems to get a lot of people very riled up, including posters on here. If you compare her turnout versus Obama it's pretty stark. she did not get her vote out, *at all*surrey_commuter said:
I still don't see why she was so bad.rick_chasey said:
Is he though.surrey_commuter said:
You need to see it as getting the vote out, and Trump is good at firing up his supporters enough to get up and votebriantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
A reasonable amount - they seem to nudge the polls in one way or other.Jezyboy said:
How much importance do you place on these debates?rick_chasey said:Ugh, glad it's not me prepping Biden.
I can't think of anything that I can picture working.
The bits I watched of the debates with Hillary were god awful on all sides. She still won the popular vote...
The whole point of the Lincoln Project stuff is not to change entrenched minds, but to nudge the few percent of the people in crucial states who voted for Trump last time who did so because they wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton (for whatever reason). Given that 70k votes swung it from Trump, because of the peculiarity of the Electoral College, that seems a sensible strategy.
This time I can't see any waverers opting for Trump as an 'unknown quantity': he's had four years to deliver his unicorns, and all he's got is a few mangy gerbils, a couple of which sit on top of his head.
Is it not just Hilary was even worse?
Two candidates that did not have broad appeal left you with hardcore supporters and a lot of others holding their nose whilst voting.
I don’t know quite why Hillary was so unpopular, but she was.0 -
He should go in with: "You were a failed businessman, who lost money while keeping up a fake billionaire lifestyle, and used every trick to make sure you got as much from the taxpayers as you could even when you did make money. Now you're a failed president who's doing the same to the country, taking people's healthcare away and failing to deal with the virus while making sure people like you still don't pay your fair share."0
-
The resolution is amazingly undemocratic, even compared to our fptp system. (i.e. about 600 vs 50). In my lifetime it has only benefitted one of the parties.kingstongraham said:
They anticipated a multi candidate system where the electors cast two votes for president and vice president, and the one with a majority of votes was president, and the one with second most was vice president. It didn't work.coopster_the_1st said:
I keep seeing this, particularly from yourself. Have you read up on why the Founding Fathers decided on the Electoral College system rather than simply going with a popular vote?briantrumpet said:That said, she still got 3m more votes than Trump.
Even with an electoral college system, you don't need this one where it's an all or nothing in 48 of the states. That wasn't what was designed.0 -
First.Aspect said:
The resolution is amazingly undemocratic, even compared to our fptp system. (i.e. about 600 vs 50). In my lifetime it has only benefitted one of the parties.kingstongraham said:
They anticipated a multi candidate system where the electors cast two votes for president and vice president, and the one with a majority of votes was president, and the one with second most was vice president. It didn't work.coopster_the_1st said:
I keep seeing this, particularly from yourself. Have you read up on why the Founding Fathers decided on the Electoral College system rather than simply going with a popular vote?briantrumpet said:That said, she still got 3m more votes than Trump.
Even with an electoral college system, you don't need this one where it's an all or nothing in 48 of the states. That wasn't what was designed.
Apart from all that, it doesn't change the fact that Clinton still got more votes than Trump, even if she still lost the election, by 80 seats, or whatever it was.0 -
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
It went exactly as expected then. It will change nothing unless at least one of them changes tack for the next two.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
The Proud Boys answer was particularly deranged.
But this about sums up the clips I've seen/heard:
0 -
I clearly had lower expectations than you, and those expectations were met. 😉rick_chasey said:
I think it went worse than expected, fwiw.pblakeney said:It went exactly as expected then. It will change nothing unless at least one of them changes tack for the next two.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9y5-Vo61w
