Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT
-
@taiwan_girl said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
@Mik I get what you are saying, but the only real vote is in November. Is there any rule in the US that a party has to have a primary to nominate a president?
What would have happened if President Trump had been assassinated? Would Sen. Vance be the nominated?
No one died, TG. The Dems knew damn good and well their candidate was mentally incompetent, prevented any primary challenge and only dropped him when it looked like they would lose. It’s the opposite of democracy. The legalities have nothing to do with the principles.
@Mik said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
The Dems knew damn good and well their candidate was mentally incompetent, prevented any primary challenge and only dropped him when it looked like they would lose.
President Biden was never a strong candidate. And I am sure that the Democrats knew this. If he was so weak a candidate months ago, what would be the benefit to not allowing a primary? They could have easily "persuaded" him to not run again months ago.
Do all that just so eventually VP Harris could become nominated? That doesn't make sense. I am not sure that VP Harris was the strongest candidate that they had.
If the plan was to replace President Biden with a stronger candidate, it seems like they were very poor in execution. Why would they want to go through all of this to nominate not there strongest candidate? And no, I dont think that VP Harris has so much power inside the Democrat party that she could arrange all this.
If enough people feel that the Democrats did not play fairly, then they will not vote for her and President Trump will be elected.
-
It’s fun to think what an own-goal Trump’s pet-eating rant was. It seems to have been invented in the last 24 hours with Vance a prime booster.
Oh - and the casual lie here about all the calls his office is getting.
I meant your pet goes missing and you suspect foul play. Who do you call? The cops? Or your Senator’s office?
@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
I meant your pet goes missing and you suspect foul play. Who do you call? The cops? Or your Senator’s office?
The Daily Show asks the same question:
Link to video -
@Mik I get what you are saying, but the only real vote is in November. Is there any rule in the US that a party has to have a primary to nominate a president?
What would have happened if President Trump had been assassinated? Would Sen. Vance be the nominated?
@taiwan_girl said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
@Mik I get what you are saying, but the only real vote is in November. Is there any rule in the US that a party has to have a primary to nominate a president?
What would have happened if President Trump had been assassinated? Would Sen. Vance be the nominated?
No, Vance was not the VP nominee at that point.
The point is not valid anyway, as there is quite a difference between the presumptive nominee being assassinated or the party deciding to push out the nominee because they thought he couldn’t win. This would. Actually, it would be more palatable if they forced him out of office via the 25th. Then they could claim incompetence, but they didn’t. So yeah, this is pretty egregious.
But comeon, you and I were both saying over a year ago that they would let him be the nominee up until after the primaries, then they would switch him out with a handpicked successor candidate to avoid any chance of nominating an unwanted successor. This is exactly what they did, just 2 weeks earlier than we predicted.
-
@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
I meant your pet goes missing and you suspect foul play. Who do you call? The cops? Or your Senator’s office?
The Daily Show asks the same question:
Link to video@Axtremus said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
I meant your pet goes missing and you suspect foul play. Who do you call? The cops? Or your Senator’s office?
The Daily Show asks the same question:
Link to video
-
@Mik said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
The Dems knew damn good and well their candidate was mentally incompetent, prevented any primary challenge and only dropped him when it looked like they would lose.
President Biden was never a strong candidate. And I am sure that the Democrats knew this. If he was so weak a candidate months ago, what would be the benefit to not allowing a primary? They could have easily "persuaded" him to not run again months ago.
Do all that just so eventually VP Harris could become nominated? That doesn't make sense. I am not sure that VP Harris was the strongest candidate that they had.
If the plan was to replace President Biden with a stronger candidate, it seems like they were very poor in execution. Why would they want to go through all of this to nominate not there strongest candidate? And no, I dont think that VP Harris has so much power inside the Democrat party that she could arrange all this.
If enough people feel that the Democrats did not play fairly, then they will not vote for her and President Trump will be elected.
@taiwan_girl said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
President Biden was never a strong candidate. And I am sure that the Democrats knew this. If he was so weak a candidate months ago, what would be the benefit to not allowing a primary? They could have easily "persuaded" him to not run again months ago.
When you tell a big lie, you eventually have to follow the initial lie with a lot more. Biden 's cognitive abilities and his deteriorating health were well known in the upper levels of the Democrat party.
But the campaign was under way. They'd raised a lot of money. They'd made a lot of ads. So, they lied. They covered things up, closely monitored his schedule, pilled or shot him up as necessary.
Even the Vice-President, the person sworn to protect this country from all enemies, foreign or domestic, went right along with the charade. Kamala-lama-ding-dong didn't utter a peep. A whisper. Even one of her patented whines.
THIS is the person you are advocating for President. A person who enjoys their power so much, they don't care how much they lie to the American people.
And if Kamala-lama-ding-dong will lie about something so important as the mental health of a man with the power to destroy most of the planet, what else do you think she will lie to the American public about?
-
@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
@Horace said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
Your own account admits that if a hoaxer or set of hoaxers called his office, it would give Vance's story more credibility than you're willing to give it. That's a lot of political power in the hands of a potential hoaxer, to expect them to forego it just because, what, they're above that sort of behavior?
If they want him to boost their meme just make it useful to him politically and get it in front of him online. Seems a lot more efficient than calling an intern in Columbus to tell him your cat is missing and hoping the story makes it to the boss.
Maybe the parsimonious explanation for your assuredness that no calls were made, is that it makes Vance a liar, and you like believing that about Vance. I mean just maybe. Since we're talking parsimony.
@Horace said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
Maybe the parsimonious explanation for your assuredness that no calls were made, is that it makes Vance a liar, and you like believing that about Vance. I mean just maybe. Since we're talking parsimony.
Let’s talk parsimony. You can sorta just barely imagine someone calling Vance’s office with the news their cat was eaten. But he says there were ‘many’ calls and the city received zero.
You gonna believe that EVERYBODY decided to call their Senator rather than the local authorities? Is that really easier for you to believe than Vance was just trying to boost what he (mistakenly) thought would be a politically-advantageous meme?
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
You don't know. You have no credible source or news story.
But you sure are behind this one...
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Horace said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
Maybe the parsimonious explanation for your assuredness that no calls were made, is that it makes Vance a liar, and you like believing that about Vance. I mean just maybe. Since we're talking parsimony.
Let’s talk parsimony. You can sorta just barely imagine someone calling Vance’s office with the news their cat was eaten. But he says there were ‘many’ calls and the city received zero.
You gonna believe that EVERYBODY decided to call their Senator rather than the local authorities? Is that really easier for you to believe than Vance was just trying to boost what he (mistakenly) thought would be a politically-advantageous meme?
@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
@Horace said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
Maybe the parsimonious explanation for your assuredness that no calls were made, is that it makes Vance a liar, and you like believing that about Vance. I mean just maybe. Since we're talking parsimony.
Let’s talk parsimony. You can sorta just barely imagine someone calling Vance’s office with the news their cat was eaten. But he says there were ‘many’ calls and the city received zero.
You gonna believe that EVERYBODY decided to call their Senator rather than the local authorities? Is that really easier for you to believe than Vance was just trying to boost what he (mistakenly) thought would be a politically-advantageous meme?
I agree that if the calls exist, they are probably not based on first-hand experience with losing pets to immigrants. A parsimonious explanation is that they were hoax calls or wish-casting calls from credulous people who heard the rumor. According to Vance's description, it was people calling about their "neighbors or friends" rather than themselves. When Vance says they may all turn out to be false rumors, I imagine he suspects they are exactly that. It's not actually a high bar of plausibility that some calls were made to Vance's office, and that's why I find your assuredness unearned, and motivated by sneering contempt for the liar Vance.
I'm not sure how you judge that the rumor isn't politically advantageous. If you go by your media and twitter feeds, Trump wouldn't be getting a single vote. And yet there he is, in a dead heat.
-
You don't know. You have no credible source or news story.
But you sure are behind this one...
@Jolly said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
You don't know. You have no credible source or news story.
You’ve got a fourth-person account from a random Facebook post, a series of memes resulting from it, and a presidential candidate that has become a laughingstock by repeating it in such a meme-able way.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@Jolly @George-K @LuFins-Dad @Mik
I agree it wasn't fair and it really was a coupe.
But it seems so poorly managed that I don't think that there was as much pre-thought and planning that went into it.
If in Sept 2023, you asked Demcrocats who should be running for President if President Biden did not, I am guessing that VP Harris would not win the poll.
-
TLDR - Kamala won the debate, but Trump picked up more voters from it.
The Brad
-
TLDR - Kamala won the debate, but Trump picked up more voters from it.
@LuFins-Dad said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
TLDR - Kamala won the debate, but Trump picked up more voters from it.
Nate ranks them 79th in terms of reliability. He hasn’t updated his forecast because no pollster he considers reliable has come out with new data.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
TLDR - Kamala won the debate, but Trump picked up more voters from it.
Nate ranks them 79th in terms of reliability. He hasn’t updated his forecast because no pollster he considers reliable has come out with new data.
@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
@LuFins-Dad said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
TLDR - Kamala won the debate, but Trump picked up more voters from it.
Nate ranks them 79th in terms of reliability. He hasn’t updated his forecast because no pollster he considers reliable has come out with new data.
Great. So go back to the NYT/Sienna poll. Trump 48% - Harris 47%. How many of that 48% do you think changed their mind? Do you think that a single person that responded they were going to vote for Trump switched their vote?
That leaves “undecided” and non-responsive. Trump has always outperformed in these groups. Donald outperformed polls by over 3% in each of the last two elections do you expect any different this time?
A ridiculously small sample size, but Reuters interviewed 10 undecided voters before and after the debate. Almost all agreed that Kamala won, but 6 said they were closer to voting for Trump after the debate, 3 towards Kamala, and 1 unmoved by either.
