Trump has lost the "magic" he had in 2016 too, the quippy off the cuff remarks, insults, enthusiasim he seems tired and annoyed now
Buy on AliExpress.com
'Murica! (379 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fake Melo
- Start date
- Tags afl_italia's cousins forza trump smocking gun
Buy on AliExpress.com
Yep. One of his main selling points was his charisma and energy (which was shown by the quippy off the cuff remarks, sharp insults, enthusiasm and bravado). And given his previous opponents were charismatic as a paper bag Hillary and walking zombie Joe… those were large advantages. He’s lost most of that charisma and energy over the past 8 years and facing a young, energetic opponent in Kamala highlights even more. I definitely would never have called her “charismatic” before, so to look far more charismatic than Trump in a head to head debate speaks volumes on Trump’s decline as he gets old.
Thanks.
I've always felt like it was a dangerous strategy to focus on Biden's age. Trump is hardly any younger and people didn't care to look at his performances, because Biden did even worse. But Donald Trump has become an old man ranting at the sky. From sharks to not knowing where he is or forgetting who he is running against, he is in no way capable of being president. And that's only on a cognitive level. The Republicans really highlighted that because of their own previous campagain against Biden.
I've always felt like it was a dangerous strategy to focus on Biden's age. Trump is hardly any younger and people didn't care to look at his performances, because Biden did even worse. But Donald Trump has become an old man ranting at the sky. From sharks to not knowing where he is or forgetting who he is running against, he is in no way capable of being president. And that's only on a cognitive level. The Republicans really highlighted that because of their own previous campagain against Biden.
Then there is Laura Loomer, what a fucking nut case she is with her disgustingly racist outlook, conspiracy theories, no wonder Trump is always praising her in public, infact she drove that story about the migrants eating dogs and cats into the agenda, she's now stating the white house will smell of curry and that it'll become a call centre if Harris gets in, referencing her Indian heritage, sad thing is alot of mainstream American media normalise this sort of behavior almost making it acceptable, whilst to those on the outside you think to yourself wtf?
I am a Republican.
A proud one. Since 1988, when I could vote for yhe first time.
This shit right here? This shit since 2016?
Nah. This ain't it. Not even close.
The ghosts of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Raegan need to bitch slap these clowns into oblivion.
Which is what will.most likely happen the day after the election.
I will be so glad when this cesspool of miscreants and sycophants are gone. And they can take their racist, misogynistic, homophonic, couch fucking followers with them.
this is the article the vid is quoting from:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/a-catastrophic-debate-for-trump-2024-presidential-election-d2e5aa7f
behind paywall, managed to read it through a browser extension before they banned me lol
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/a-catastrophic-debate-for-trump-2024-presidential-election-d2e5aa7f
behind paywall, managed to read it through a browser extension before they banned me lol
A Catastrophic Debate for Trump
He was angry and fixated on the past, and he failed to define Harris or her policies.
Tuesday’s debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was a train wreck for him, far worse than anything Team Trump could have imagined.
Ms. Harris was often on offense, leaving Mr. Trump visibly rattled as she launched rocket after rocket at him. A New York Times analysis found she spent 46% of her time on the attack while Mr. Trump devoted 29% of his time to going after her. Debates aren’t won on defense.
Ms. Harris pressed Mr. Trump on the economy, the Ukraine war, foreign policy, healthcare, the Jan. 6 attack and especially abortion, leaving him flustered and often incoherent. In return, he criticized her on border security, climate change and the Israel-Hamas war.
Mr. Trump had to know the vice president would try to get him to lose his cool. She did. She went after him on his multiple indictments. She called him “weak” and belittled him as a six-time bankrupt, spoiled inheritor of wealth. She said his former national security adviser thought him, in her words, “dangerous and unfit” for the Oval Office.
As is frequently the case with Mr. Trump, he let his emotions get the better of him. He took the bait almost every time she put it on the hook, offering a pained smile as she did. Rather than dismissing her attacks and launching his strongest counterarguments against her, Mr. Trump got furious. As her attacks continued, his voice rose. He gripped the podium more often and more firmly. He grimaced and shook his head, at times responding with wild and fanciful rhetoric. Short, deft replies and counterpunches would have been effective. He didn’t deliver them.
Mr. Trump did a terrible job at his most important task—tying her to President Biden’s failed policies. He did an even worse job prosecuting the argument that she’s a far-left politician out of sync with America’s values. The Trump campaign’s mid-debate fact-check bulletins that flooded email inboxes were far more substantive and effective than his responses at the podium.
Mr. Trump’s failure wasn’t for a lack of material. He had plenty in the Biden-Harris administration’s record to work with, especially on inflation and the crisis at the border. In one of his strongest moments, he hit hard on the botched Afghan withdrawal. Even then, he got sucked into an argument about his administration’s negotiations with the Taliban.
There was no sustained, specific indictment of her record on almost any issue. Mr. Trump offered angry responses, pursed lips and eyes darting mostly down, seldom looking at her. And what was it with his makeup that left white circles around his eyes? This was his most important opportunity to make an impression of strength and relative stability.
Both candidates made significant misstatements. Ms. Harris said her opponent “left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression” and Mr. Trump declared inflation under Biden-Harris “probably the worst in our nation’s history.” But his false statements far outnumbered hers by my count.
Mr. Trump had a great comeback to Ms. Harris’s agenda for change. She’s had 3½ years as vice president, he said, so “why hasn’t she done it?” But that was in his closing statement. It should have been the attack he started with, continually repeated, and closed with, undercutting every new policy proposal she offered.
It matters how debating candidates carry themselves. There, it was no contest. Ms. Harris came across as calm, confident, strong and focused on the future. Mr. Trump came across as hot, angry and fixated on the past, especially his own. She mastered the split screen, projecting confidence and wordlessly undercutting him by smiling while shaking her head as he spoke.
Many undecided and swing voters will make up their minds less on any single issue than on their visceral reactions to the candidates. Ms. Harris did herself much good with that crowd Tuesday. Mr. Trump didn’t.
Even more voters wanted to learn something new and reassuring about the candidates in the debate. She provided them plenty, while he didn’t.
Trump enthusiasts will be upset that the ABC interviewers fact-checked the former president far more than they did Ms. Harris. Then again, he gave them plenty of material to work with—such as repeating the bizarre claim that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating the pets of local residents. That was probably Team Trump’s lowest moment.
Will this debate have an effect? Yes, though perhaps not as much as Team Harris hopes or as much as Team Trump might fear. But there’s no putting lipstick on this pig. Mr. Trump was crushed by a woman he previously dismissed as “dumb as a rock.” Which raises the question: What does that make him?
Mr. Rove helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads and is author of “The Triumph of William McKinley” (Simon & Schuster, 2015).
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks during a presidential debate with Kamala Harris in Philadelphia, Sept. 10. Photo: Alex Brandon/Associated Press
Copyright ©2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the September 12, 2024, print edition as 'A Catastrophic Debate for Trump'.
He was angry and fixated on the past, and he failed to define Harris or her policies.
Tuesday’s debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was a train wreck for him, far worse than anything Team Trump could have imagined.
Ms. Harris was often on offense, leaving Mr. Trump visibly rattled as she launched rocket after rocket at him. A New York Times analysis found she spent 46% of her time on the attack while Mr. Trump devoted 29% of his time to going after her. Debates aren’t won on defense.
Ms. Harris pressed Mr. Trump on the economy, the Ukraine war, foreign policy, healthcare, the Jan. 6 attack and especially abortion, leaving him flustered and often incoherent. In return, he criticized her on border security, climate change and the Israel-Hamas war.
Mr. Trump had to know the vice president would try to get him to lose his cool. She did. She went after him on his multiple indictments. She called him “weak” and belittled him as a six-time bankrupt, spoiled inheritor of wealth. She said his former national security adviser thought him, in her words, “dangerous and unfit” for the Oval Office.
As is frequently the case with Mr. Trump, he let his emotions get the better of him. He took the bait almost every time she put it on the hook, offering a pained smile as she did. Rather than dismissing her attacks and launching his strongest counterarguments against her, Mr. Trump got furious. As her attacks continued, his voice rose. He gripped the podium more often and more firmly. He grimaced and shook his head, at times responding with wild and fanciful rhetoric. Short, deft replies and counterpunches would have been effective. He didn’t deliver them.
Mr. Trump did a terrible job at his most important task—tying her to President Biden’s failed policies. He did an even worse job prosecuting the argument that she’s a far-left politician out of sync with America’s values. The Trump campaign’s mid-debate fact-check bulletins that flooded email inboxes were far more substantive and effective than his responses at the podium.
Mr. Trump’s failure wasn’t for a lack of material. He had plenty in the Biden-Harris administration’s record to work with, especially on inflation and the crisis at the border. In one of his strongest moments, he hit hard on the botched Afghan withdrawal. Even then, he got sucked into an argument about his administration’s negotiations with the Taliban.
There was no sustained, specific indictment of her record on almost any issue. Mr. Trump offered angry responses, pursed lips and eyes darting mostly down, seldom looking at her. And what was it with his makeup that left white circles around his eyes? This was his most important opportunity to make an impression of strength and relative stability.
Both candidates made significant misstatements. Ms. Harris said her opponent “left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression” and Mr. Trump declared inflation under Biden-Harris “probably the worst in our nation’s history.” But his false statements far outnumbered hers by my count.
Mr. Trump had a great comeback to Ms. Harris’s agenda for change. She’s had 3½ years as vice president, he said, so “why hasn’t she done it?” But that was in his closing statement. It should have been the attack he started with, continually repeated, and closed with, undercutting every new policy proposal she offered.
It matters how debating candidates carry themselves. There, it was no contest. Ms. Harris came across as calm, confident, strong and focused on the future. Mr. Trump came across as hot, angry and fixated on the past, especially his own. She mastered the split screen, projecting confidence and wordlessly undercutting him by smiling while shaking her head as he spoke.
Many undecided and swing voters will make up their minds less on any single issue than on their visceral reactions to the candidates. Ms. Harris did herself much good with that crowd Tuesday. Mr. Trump didn’t.
Even more voters wanted to learn something new and reassuring about the candidates in the debate. She provided them plenty, while he didn’t.
Trump enthusiasts will be upset that the ABC interviewers fact-checked the former president far more than they did Ms. Harris. Then again, he gave them plenty of material to work with—such as repeating the bizarre claim that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating the pets of local residents. That was probably Team Trump’s lowest moment.
Will this debate have an effect? Yes, though perhaps not as much as Team Harris hopes or as much as Team Trump might fear. But there’s no putting lipstick on this pig. Mr. Trump was crushed by a woman he previously dismissed as “dumb as a rock.” Which raises the question: What does that make him?
Mr. Rove helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads and is author of “The Triumph of William McKinley” (Simon & Schuster, 2015).
Copyright ©2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the September 12, 2024, print edition as 'A Catastrophic Debate for Trump'.
Last edited:
They'd like to think they're the dictators of the country, but they're not.
The new American standard now is who either storms or holds off a storming of the Capitol during the final vote-count formalizing of the next president.
I'm old enough to remember when this used to be a $200,000 of production JibJab video that people took 26 minutes to download over a modem.
Now it's a $37 video of two people doing imitations on a cellphone camera uploaded to YouTube.
Even if he wins they will have to rebuild. Like when Obama took over the whol DNC party apparatus and moved it from DC to Chicago, depleting the party of any real leadership post-Obama.
The new American standard now is who either storms or holds off a storming of the Capitol during the final vote-count formalizing of the next president.
I'm old enough to remember when this used to be a $200,000 of production JibJab video that people took 26 minutes to download over a modem.
Now it's a $37 video of two people doing imitations on a cellphone camera uploaded to YouTube.
Even if he wins they will have to rebuild. Like when Obama took over the whol DNC party apparatus and moved it from DC to Chicago, depleting the party of any real leadership post-Obama.
Well, yes, but what I meant was more of a moral rebuild. I mean, what is that party about these days? Other than protecting the interests of billionaires and this weird attempt to control women, I just see very little in terms of substance. Even if you go into topics such as taxes or migration, the top of the GOP does not seem to have a coherent plan.
I guess there is the concept of a plan.
I guess there is the concept of a plan.
The reality is he will go to jail if he loses though.
It's hard to describe, but you feel the climate towards Trump shift. A lot of Republicans seem to be fed up with his rambling. He's hurting some of the policy they really want, he might inadvertently lead America to a federal right to abortion the way he's going. He's pissed off and fired so many of them, there is bound to be a need for revenge. If he loses, people are going to want to hurt him. And they need to hurt him fast, because he could die any minute given how old he is.
It's hard to describe, but you feel the climate towards Trump shift. A lot of Republicans seem to be fed up with his rambling. He's hurting some of the policy they really want, he might inadvertently lead America to a federal right to abortion the way he's going. He's pissed off and fired so many of them, there is bound to be a need for revenge. If he loses, people are going to want to hurt him. And they need to hurt him fast, because he could die any minute given how old he is.
saw a few snippets of some jd vance interviews yesterday and he said that if they'd win the election their first regulatory action would be "drill baby drill"
(he said that they could and should produce 2-3 times the amount of natural gas they're producing today. he probably doesn't know that natural gas prices are at a very low point already because of the overproduction...)
(he said that they could and should produce 2-3 times the amount of natural gas they're producing today. he probably doesn't know that natural gas prices are at a very low point already because of the overproduction...)