Presidential Debate

[SpiritDragon]

On 7/2/2024 at 5:26 AM, Phoenix_person said:

Don't overcomplicate it. I try my best to assume that Occam's Razor applies until I have credible reason to think it doesn't. 

I've been voting for Democrats my entire life. This is the party that turned on Howard Dean in '04 because he got a little too excited. It's a party that never thought Trump would actually beat Hillary. Miscalculations are a central feature of the Democratic Party brand. 

So you figure that this debate was nothing more than Biden's Dukakis in the tank moment?

[Carborendum]

On 7/1/2024 at 9:05 PM, SpiritDragon said:

Time will tell - was this staged to ruin Biden and usher in someone else? Was Biden supposed to win first and then be replaced to usher in someone else? Is this all just a bad miscalculation on the part of the Democrats? 

It depends on whom you ask.

The evidence was there all along.  But the media decided to run with the narrative that those whacky conservatives are only saying things because they're whacky conservatives.  And the average low-information voter simply believed what they were told without even looking into it for themselves.

Then somewhere someone decided that Biden was so far gone that getting him elected would be a worse problem than dumping him. so...

Why did the media run with it to begin with?  Liberal hive mind.  Nothing more.

My father was subject to dementia in his final years.  And one person said he's lost his marbles.  The others looked and wondered and hoped.  But none of is dismissed it out of hand.  But as we hoped, we also looked and observed.  And gradually, there was enough craziness that all of us were convinced.

With Biden, the liberals didn't just "wonder" or "hope for the best".  They actively denied it.  "He's always the smartest man in the room?" they said.  They didn't just show skepticism.  They shouted outright denial.  They even went a step further attributing false motives against those who DARED to point out that Biden was losing it.

Then they "all of a sudden" see what we've all been seeing for the past year or two (possibly more).  And they feel like they had the wind knocked out of them? They were surprised by this???

This media meltdown was all pre-scripted.  The fact that Jake Tapper who had a bad history with Trump, while lying on Biden's behalf, was part of the team who now fact-checked many lies from Biden...???  Did no one else find this complete 180 to be incomprehensible?

Deny, deny, deny.  Lie, Lie, Lie.  That's the liberal tactic.  I get that.  So, this makes me have to ask the question: Why change?  Why now?  No one else wonders.   I haven't even heard any conservative commentators ask that question.

The saddest part is that there were so many low-information voters who were genuinely surprised by this.  Anyone with half a brain could see what was happening.  But that's just it.  They could.  But they refused to see what was right in front of them the whole time.

And it is those same low-information voters who can't see that Trump (who is a bad man) is actually a better choice than Biden (who is an evil man).  All they see is "Orange man bad.  Anything better than Orange man."

[NeuroTypical]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You can really tell Biden loves his black voters.

"Dang it, Mr. President, we meant their egos!"

[mordorbund]

On 7/1/2024 at 7:57 PM, mikbone said:

 

Didn't Jimmy Carter just serve one term?

 

Jimmy Carter already died over 20 years ago. Michael and the devil came down and fought for his soul. Carter sat them at a table and said they had to stay there until they reached agreement. Carter has been free to pursue his interests while awaiting the outcome.

[NeuroTypical]

Say what you will about Jimmy Carter, but he continued to occasionally teach Sunday school at his Church as late as 2019.

[Carborendum]

32 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Say what you will about Jimmy Carter, but he continued to occasionally teach Sunday school at his Church as late as 2019.

I'm sure that was for his daughter, Amy.

[Phoenix_person]

11 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

So you figure that this debate was nothing more than Biden's Dukakis in the tank moment?

I think his entire presidency was a miscalculation. A lot of Dems, leftists included, didn't actually think Trump would run this year if he lost in 2020. I think a lot of us thought "Okay, that was wild, but now we can go back to running against milquetoast GOP candidates that we can afford to lose to." The party establishment, for whatever reason, decided Biden needed his shot. And it didn't help that leftists were split between Bernie and Warren (Warren was my choice). So now we have our own (aged) milk toast as an incumbent running against Trump and a very united GOP, which was the last thing any of us wanted. Leftists knew Biden's age was going to be an issue (ironic, because Bernie and Liz aren't exactly spring chickens either). We expected Biden to lose this year to someone like Nikki Haley, and we were okay with that. 

It also can't be overstated how much the current Israel/Gaza conflict has complicated things for Biden. US policy around Israel's response to the October attack has fractured the Democrats at a time when they can't afford to be divided. Leftists smelled blood in the water prior to the debate, but most of us were ready to hold our noses. Now everyone can see the emperor has no clothes, and liberal Dems are panicking. The convention could get very interesting.

[mikbone]

Democrats are losing their minds.  Full panic mode.

Time is of the essence.  

They finally realized he has dementia.

Guess what?  Dementia does not get better.  There may be moments of clarity but his downward spiral will continue.

[Carborendum]

So far, it looks like the buzz is that Harris would be the heir apparent.

Former Rep. Tim Ryan says Kamala Harris should replace Biden as nominee (youtube.com)

My thought: If there was anyone who has more deplorable mental faculties and speech performance, it's Harris.

[Phoenix_person]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So far, it looks like the buzz is that Harris would be the heir apparent.

Former Rep. Tim Ryan says Kamala Harris should replace Biden as nominee (youtube.com)

My thought: If there was anyone who has more deplorable mental faculties and speech performance, it's Harris.

What are your concerns about her mental faculties? 

[mikbone]

7 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

What are your concerns about her mental faculties?

I don’t think she has developmental delay, dementia or a brain disorder.

That being said, her responses to questions are often blunders, cackles, and/or poorly conceived lies.

The president of the USA should be able to communicate well.  Should have an understanding of the political and military stare of affairs domestic and abroad.  Ideally, our president should be a person that people respect for his / her insight and strength of character. Someone that terrorists and fascists fear.

These are all softball questions from her supporters…  What’s gonna happen when she gets into a difficult situation?  How will she interact with Putin and Xi Jinping.

I remember when our allies didn’t openly mock us…

Edited July 5, 2024 by mikbone

[Vort]

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So far, it looks like the buzz is that Harris would be the heir apparent.

Former Rep. Tim Ryan says Kamala Harris should replace Biden as nominee (youtube.com)

My thought: If there was anyone who has more deplorable mental faculties and speech performance, it's Harris.

LOL. Guaranteed Dem loss. Hard to believe, but Harris is less likeable than Biden.

[Vort]

13 hours ago, mikbone said:

I remember when our allies didn’t openly mock us…

I really don't. Even in the sunny '80s, bagging on Americans and America was popular sport worldwide.

[LDSGator]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

I really don't. Even in the sunny '80s, bagging on Americans and America was popular sport worldwide.

Yup. In the early 2000’s I remember citizens from our “allies” insinuating that we deserved the 9/11 attacks

[NeuroTypical]

On 7/5/2024 at 9:35 AM, mikbone said:

I remember when our allies didn’t openly mock us…

Me too.  It was 4 years ago.  

My wife, through her small business interests, interacts informally online with hundreds and hundreds of people worldwide.  She's lost count of all the times someone outside the country asked her something like "Why did you Americans dump the strong respected guy for the frail old man?"  This notion, from more than a handful of different countries.

[askandanswer]

On 6/26/2024 at 11:02 PM, Traveler said:

I think many Trump supporters will be surprised how well those that oppse him can script this.  Biden supporters will be convinced that Trump is even more evil than expected.

 

The Traveler

If people choose Trump on the basis that he is a lesser evil than Biden, ie, both are evil, but one is less so, would that suggest that America is at the point referred to in Mosiah 29:27? 

27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

[Manners Matter]

12 hours ago, askandanswer said:

If people choose Trump on the basis that he is a lesser evil than Biden, ie, both are evil, but one is less so, would that suggest that America is at the point referred to in Mosiah 29:27? 

27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

Most certainly not! There's a difference between voting for an imperfect person and voting for a platform that supports abortion, chains (ie welfare state, legalizing drugs), wars, lgbtq agendas, etc. 

Edited July 7, 2024 by Manners Matter

[Traveler]

12 hours ago, askandanswer said:

If people choose Trump on the basis that he is a lesser evil than Biden, ie, both are evil, but one is less so, would that suggest that America is at the point referred to in Mosiah 29:27? 

27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

Things that I think Trump did or attempted to do that I support and believe were a benefit.

1.      The Abraham Accords.

2.      Attempted to close the border until we get a hand on illegal immigration and how we could benefit by changing immigration laws.

3.      Control our supply chain essentials.  Either by developing our own sources or obtaining needed elements exclusively from countries with whom we had good and stable relations.

4.      Grow the economy by limiting government spending and incentivizing in house development of resources (including and especially energy – both existing and possible) and manufacturing.

5.      Encourage (economic incentives) lost jobs to foreign countries (especially those that are difficult and do not respect our laws) to return to the USA or countries with whom we have favorable relationships (especially countries that are not at war against an alai).

6.      Extend foreign aid only to those organizations that are not hostile towards the USA or those that do not aid any principality hostile towards the USA or our allies.  Maintain sanctions against hostile (bad actors – supporters of terrorism) entities.

7.      Keep corporate taxes below the magic economic number of 23%.

Things that I think Biden did or attempted to do that I support and believe were a benefit.

1.      ???  (I am open to any discussion to persuade me otherwise).   I do not consider the creation of a commission to investigate and report on anything as something that is done.

Things I would like to see our president support and government do.

1.      Return control of education to the States.

2.        Make the deliberate targeting of government officials (including police, judges, and agents) with lethal force a capital crime (death penalty).

3.      Any targeting of government officials (including police, judges, and agents) in any way that can cause harm a felony under the law.

4.      Protest that causes or endanger harm to citizens or officials; or causes destruction of property a felony under the law.

5.      Pay elected officials (salary and benefits) on a scale directly linked to their household income.  Limit all benefits to equal or less than veteran benefits.

6.      Make all calendar entries of elected officials a matter of public record (this includes listing all in attendance at nonpublic meetings.  List of all gifts.

7.      Require that before any legislation is presented for vote in congress that all contributors (especially lobbyists) to the legislation be listed as part of the legislation.  Failure to do so will result in nullifying the legislation and fines against the congressmen and their staff that sponsors that legislation.

Enough for now – hopefully the just of my thinking is sufficiently represented.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

5.      Pay elected officials (salary and benefits) on a scale directly linked to their household income.  Limit all benefits to equal or less than veteran benefits.

Do you mean directly linked or inversely linked? Directly linking a payscale to current household income would be unpopular with the vast majority of Americans. Inversely linking them would help insure that we have the worst, least competent people in government positions.

[Phoenix_person]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

Do you mean directly linked or inversely linked? Directly linking a payscale to current household income would be unpopular with the vast majority of Americans. Inversely linking them would help insure that we have the worst, least competent people in government positions.

The official salary of elected officials is largely inconsequential due to the amount of money they receive through other means, including (and probably especially) stock investments. That's why no one on the left cared that Trump declined his salary. Only a great fool would think he didn't make money from his presidency (and to be clear, I'm under no delusion that other presidents haven't also profited from the office).

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

Only a great fool would think he didn't make money from his presidency (and to be clear, I'm under no delusion that other presidents haven't also profited from the office).

Trump is the only President in my lifetime that actually lost net worth during his tenure in office.

Shear dollar amounts: Clinton made the most.

Percentage: Obama had the greatest increase in net worth.

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, Vort said:

Do you mean directly linked or inversely linked? Directly linking a payscale to current household income would be unpopular with the vast majority of Americans. Inversely linking them would help insure that we have the worst, least competent people in government positions.

You are correct – I should have said indirect.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

The official salary of elected officials is largely inconsequential due to the amount of money they receive through other means, including (and probably especially) stock investments. That's why no one on the left cared that Trump declined his salary. Only a great fool would think he didn't make money from his presidency (and to be clear, I'm under no delusion that other presidents haven't also profited from the office).

I would be interested in why you think Trump made money when his net worth diminished.  Even, (and especially) using the methods to determine net worth referenced by democrats in his trial in NY.

I am very saddened by methods used by B. Sanders and others with so called legal means of transferring up to 20% of campaign contributions directly into personal bank accounts.  Though it is not necessarily political – that even in excess of 90% of charitable contributions can be transferred into personal bank accounts free of being taxed.  It irks me to the core that democrats that do this (Clinton’s for example) that then complain that the rich are not taxed enough.  It is not a service, nor do I believe it is charity to use force or use other means to acquire other’s money to help the poor.  It is only a service or charity when one uses exclusively their own money, obtained by their own labor for such things.

 

The Traveler

Edited July 8, 2024 by Traveler

[LDSGator]

18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is only a service or charity when one uses exclusively their own money, obtained by their own labor for such things.

Bingo. Compassion is easy when someone else is paying for it. 

[NeuroTypical]

45 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am very saddened by methods used by B. Sanders

Me too, however, I have to admit, it was nice that the American left suddenly discovered it was ok to be a millionaire, the same year Bernie became one: