CouchPotato

You know, you say you want meaningful dialogue while in other threads you are insinuating politicians you don't like are fascists as well as the people who support them. Objectivity is not your strong suit.

I kind of see the point from both sides here. Politics has become more childish. The rhetoric from people on both sides in discussion boards like this one has become more childish. It's not hard to imagine that political debates will soon just be people saying "You mad bro?". As a conservative, I think we should stay out of this as much as possible. Let people on the other side sound like the youtube comments section. But I don't think taking the high road always works. People on the conservative side of the aisle were labelled racists for years. In 2012, Biden told a black audience that Romney would "put y'all back in chains." Paul Ryan was going to "push grandma off a cliff." The response to this was principled and calm. Romney and Ryan stayed focused on things like their ideas and criticizing their opponents' ideas. But it didn't calm this kind of rhetoric down. Obama took a personal shot at Romney in a debate because he has a lot of money. The media praised it as being brilliant. When Trump says that if Biden wins re-election the auto industry will face a bloodbath. Democrats say Trump is threatening an actual bloodbath if Biden wins. When it comes to the interwebs and common people discussing politics, both sides can say extreme stuff. But as far as the actual politicians go, there is no doubt which side has been more extreme in demonizing the other side. Sometimes people only learn when they have to face consequences. They need a bit of their own medicine. Conservatives had no choice but to become more confrontational. You can't always sit on the sidelines and call yourself principled. Sometimes you have to make a stand for something.

Fair enough. I am editing it back. I was just trying to make it more dramatic.

You mean Biden's dementia. Yes, it was in plain sight for a few years now. We knew.

I see some sites reporting that the CEO of Gab is claiming that Thomas Crooks had an account where he made pro-Biden posts. Nothing conclusive yet though.

We have always been at war with Eurasia!!!

I really think a lot of it is nerves. Trudeau would come up with something to say. He might say something kind of clueless, but he would put on a confident face. Trudeau also seems to have a few standard lines that he paraphrases over and over as a response to difficult questions. Yes, it is infuriating because he doesn't really answer the difficult question, but it is better than sounding nervous. And let's face it, every politician deflects. It's something she could work on. We could go coach her and covertly lure her toward our way of thinking.

What we need are fact checker checkers. And then fact checker checker checkers. This is why you can't police misinformation and disinformation. The arbiters are human and just as biased as the media.

He probably assumed that normal people would understand that condemning Nazis and white supremacists means he condemns all the racisty bad guys. He mistakenly assumed that liberals are normal people. I think what Trump should do next time there is a situation like this is just name all the people in the crowd one-by-one and say if they were bad or good.

This sort of thing just makes you look unhinged. It doesn't make you sound like a tough guy.

Of course not, and it was mainly Republicans that passed the resolution. But these little things are all part of the battle.

I was just rewatching that interview she gave where she is asked about the border. You know the one. She says, "We've been to the border." And when it's pointed out that she hasn't been to the border, she says "and I haven't been to Europe, either" and laughs. That's the kind of situation where she is weak. She starts to seem really nervous in that interview when she starts being challenged. I wonder if that is why she laughs sometimes. In another thread, I compared her to Trudeau, but I think Trudeau would look more in control in these situations. He would just say, "Americans know that we have been there for them. Whether it's at the southern border or making sure people have adequate health care and delivering on climate goals, we have always stood up for Americans, from coast to coast to coast." It's not an answer, but Trudeau would say it without looking like a deer in the headlights.

I've often said the same thing myself.

Is there anyone you would see as having been a more solid pick for Trump?

Sure, why not. Just pointing out the news in the headline. The House did pass that resolution.

Well, it's not like they did anything too disruptive like clean the sidewalks and put up bouncy castles or anything.

I guess the thread title explains it all. Would you have picked Vance? Is there anyone else you might have chosen above him. I really have no opinion on the matter myself, but I am interested in what everyone else thinks.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group." https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/10/02/trump-and-white-supremacy-he-did-condemn-and-has-repeatedly-column/5883336002/

A lot of people just don't believe in tearing down statues of historic figures. That's not Nazism. It doesn't even mean they think these people were wonderful. History is complex and the people in it have all kinds of warts. There's no end to the statues you could tear down if you really examine the lives and ideas of a lot of these historic people. You can't conceive of the idea that some people might just believe in preserving the landmarks without being white supremacists?

Watergate Hotel sanitized after maggots released to protest Netanyahu stay https://thehill.com/homenews/4790944-watergate-hotel-sanitized-maggots-protest-netanyahu/

Well, that's kind of subjective isn't it. I mean, some might say that the attempted assassination of a former president is pretty important news that would understandably get coverage for quite a while. I don't know either way. In any case, if you look above my post, you will see that someone else was posting about it. Being on a forum, and being the kind of guy who does the things that people on forums do, I responded to it. Guess I am just crazy like that.

There was no damage to any of the teleprompters at the event. Also, a NY Times photographer managed to get a photograph of the bullet on it's trajectory. Do you think the USSS and the New York Times are in cahoots to boost Trump's image?

Is the FOS LIES nickname for Fox one you came up with yourself? And is LMAO actually part of the nickname? It seems to be followed by LMAO a lot, so I am just wondering?

Are you talking about Trump withdrawing from the race? Alright, let's go through this again. Biden was running for President. Now it became clear to many of us a few years ago that Biden's brain was not firing on all cylinders. People either chose to ignore it or they were significantly sheltered from it by the media. There is no way the media did not know. There is no way the people around him did not know. It was obvious. But as long as he was seen as a good candidate they kept up that lie. They did not care about the good of the country. But then the debate happened and they realized the lie was too ridiculous at this point. All of a sudden CNN and other outlets became magically aware that Biden has a problem. (Who knew? It's not like anybody warned them.) So at that point more people on the Democrat side start saying, "Hey, now that the cat is out of the bag, people might be less likely to vote for this guy." Now all of a sudden Democrats and Hollywood actors and donors are wanting him replaced. It's not the dementia that changed their minds (because that's long been apparent), it was the fact that it got to the point where pretending it wasn't there was making them look ridiculous. Even at this point though, Biden was not ready to drop out. Maybe he didn't have the self-awareness to realize how bad he was. But he said not long ago that only God could stop him. The reason Biden is gone now is for the good of the Democrat party. Plain and simple. There were some in the Democrat party who still wanted to keep Biden, because they felt they had no good replacement. What is worse: a candidate with dementia (er, excuse me, I mean MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT) who has a good reputation with Democrats or a younger candidate without dementia but who doesn't quite have the brand Biden does? Ultimately, the "replace him" argument won the day. Now, Trump is also running for President. Like him or not, many people want Trump to run for President. At this point in time, at least, it looks like Trump has a pretty good shot of winning. So why would he back out?

Voter ID laws are racist!! Unless you are in Canada or any other modern democracy.