Republicans dismayed by Trump’s ‘bad’ and ‘unprepared’ debate performance
Republicans dismayed by Trump’s ‘bad’ and ‘unprepared’ debate performance
GOP lawmakers and analysts virtually unanimous that Trump was second best to Harris in first presidential debate
GOP lawmakers and analysts virtually unanimous that Trump was second best to Harris in first presidential debate
Donald Trump’s campaign was in damage control mode on Wednesday amid widespread dismay among supporters over a presidential debate performance that saw Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent, repeatedly goad him into going wildly off-message and missing apparent opportunities to tackle her on policy.
Even with Trump insisting to have won the debate “by a lot”, Republicans were virtually unanimous that Trump had come off second best in a series of exchanges that saw the vice-president deliberately bait him on his weak points while he responded with visible anger.
The Republican nominee – who took the unusual step afterwards of visiting the media spin room, a venue normally frequented only by candidates’ surrogates – was non-committal on Wednesday to the Harris campaign’s proposal for a second debate. Despite widespread opinion to the contrary, Trump suggested she needed it because she had lost. “I’d be less inclined to because we had a great night. We won the debate,” he told Fox & Friends.
You're viewing a single thread.
First, im no trumpster, i dont like the guy. The MM is really pulling out all the stops on spinning this one. Trump did just fine, Republicans think he did just fine, and some even consider it a win. It's crazy how strong the MM is pushing it a major Harris win and that Trump did very badly, and that even Republicans think he lost, the headline "Republicans dismayed" is just bullshit, I know a lot of Republicans, and none have claimed to be "dismayed". That's the spin. I know everyone here thinks it was a big Harris win and no one denies it, so I'm just here to tell inform yall that those of us who live in reality don't consider it a big win for Harris or that Trump did badly. All the big news stations are helping to push that narrative of a MAJOR Harris win. As always, MSNBC, USAtoday, CNN, NBC, NYtimes, Washington Post etc. I know most of yall trust these news outlets and don't think they have bias, but they most certainly do.
Kamala pissed me off with all the stupid faces she was making, she also just sounded like a whinny B---- several times. My personal opinion is that it was more like a tie than anything, Harris had no content to what she said. But Trump did let her get under his skin. They both lied... and quite a bit.
Anyway, I know where I am, I know the responses I'm going to get in this liberal echo chamber. So come on.
Interesting that Kamalas facial reactions bothered you that much, but apparently Trump's clown faces didn't even rate a mention. It's almost like your not nearly as impartial as your pretending.
Trump looked and sounded like a sloppy bafoon.
Concepts of a plan? Eating pets?
Your huffing weapons grade copium my dude.
Lol. Sounds like you've already ingested too much propaganda. You're parroting it perfectly. You've mixed stupid personal opinion with the main stream medias rhetoric.
Concepts of a plan? Eating pets?
Go look up the definition of "concept." Having a concept of a plan like nearly like saying, "I have a plan of a plan." Which would be redundant. Saying, "I have a concept of a plan," is like basically saying, "I have a plan." There is nothing weird or wrong about the phrase, "i have a concept of a plan." This is English anyway, always flexible. You parroting those talking points indicates to me you are probably incapable of an independent discerning perspective.
'I have Concepts of a plan, I'm not president' That's a weak, dog ate my homework, BS non-answer that any intelligent listener heard and understood as such.
'eating pets' You gonna defend the ex president repeating easily disproven twitter misinfo on the debate stage too? We both know it would've bothered you if Kamala did.
Any major gaffes or mistakes made by Kamala you care to mention? Or was it just her face that you, a paragon of impartiality, object to?
I'm not going to argue every point with you. Waste of my time/energy.
That's a weak, dog ate my homework, BS non-answer that any intelligent listener heard and understood as such.
... No, it demonstrates that those who share your perspective probably failed English in high school. Your claim of intelligence is fallacious. I'm sorry... fallacious means it was wrong or deceptive. I'll use smaller words for you.
'I have concepts of a plan, I'm not president'
This could be clearer. But it conveys that one has ideas or concepts of a plan but not in a position of authority to implement it.
I hope many read this so I don't have to keep "ELI5" to everyone.
(Edit: added the word "could")
Lots of typos for someone championing high school english..
So your brilliant analysis that I overlooked in my assessment is that:
"concepts of a plan conveys that one has ideas or concepts of a plan"
Lmao, your brain worms must be starving
So your brilliant analysis that I overlooked in my assessment is that:
"concepts of a plan conveys that one has ideas or concepts of a plan"
Lol, yes! Are you ok? Yes, It means what it means. It doesn't have to be explained any different. I honestly don't understand why you and so many others cant comprehend this simple phrase.
He should've just said he plan then, or done that in 2016, or in 2020. Reality is he doesn't have one but understands what a plan is. Hence he "has a concept" of a plan but doesn't actually have a plan. Luckily he has MAGAts to explain what be REALLY meant.
That barely holds up if you consider this argument in a vacuum. Brought into the context that Trump said he had better plan than Obamacare since 2016, your argument is utter bullshit.
- It's not an argument. It's me explaining a simple phrase. 2. Yes, the phrase does hold up in a vacuum. 3. Why would we consider it in a vacuum?
And then... you say
Brought into the context that Trump said
So... you aren't putting it in a vacuum, you are putting it in the context of something 8 years ago. (Relevancy here is a stretch)...
your argument is utter bullshit.
My argument...? What was my argument?
Wait... You are arguing just about semantics but say stuff like arguing about points made by someone else would be waisting time? Be gone troll.
I'm not going to argue every point with you. Waste of my time/energy.
Translation: I can't defend the clearly batshit crazy thing so I'm going to try to ignore it.
You've been wasting a lot of time/energy replying here, but for some reason responding to the fact that Trump said immigrants were eating pets, post birth abortions are happening, and children are coming home from school having had gender changing surgery forced upon them, well that's just minor quibbles not worth arguing about...
You've been wasting a lot of time/energy replying here
Hah you're not wrong about that. I'm nearly worn out now.
I haven't answered those topics for a few reasons. Some are more nuanced/complicated and require more effort, and like you said, I've "been wasting a lot of time/energy replaying" already. But no, they aren't "minor quibbles" and totally worth arguing, but I have enough on my plate already.
Translation: it's indefensible and should disqualify him, so I'm going to try to keep the conversation on other topics as much as possible and hopefully people will forget the completely bat shit insane things Trump claimed.
Translation: You're a dumb ass
Edit: sorry... y'all've sapped my energy with idiocy.
Interesting, you still have the time and energy to respond, but not about the specific bat shit crazy things Trump claimed...
Aw sweet. New copypasta just dropped.
Lol. Why do you think that?
( ͡° _ ͡°)...
Mmm glad we had this conversation.
First, im no trumpster
Perhaps, but you are clearly thinking and writing like one.
those of us who live in reality
I'm not so sure you do. Trump said some of THE most inane things he's ever said, yet you are effectively equating that to what Harris had said, which had more substance in a few words than Trump had in the whole debate.
she also just sounded like a whinny B----
Right out of the Fox News talking-point playbook. And the proper spelling would be "whiny". Unless you're comparing her sound to a horse's neigh.
in this liberal echo chamber
Right out of the Fox News talking-point playbook.
I wish you luck in your endeavors. This "both sides"-ing doesn't really work when they are most definitely not the same.
It simple they're either stupid or lying
Concisely put :)
It can be—and usually is—both.
That's the third part I don't like to add because it really upsets people... You're either stupid or lying or too fucking dumb to realize you're doing both.
I can play this game...
Perhaps, but you are clearly thinking and writing like one.
That's an opinion. You sound politically color blind. If praise isn't being solely given to the candidate you support, sutely, he must be for the opposition.
"those of us who live in reality"
I'm not so sure you do. Trump said some of THE most inane things he's ever said, yet you are effectively equating that to what Harris had said, which had more substance in a few words than Trump had in the whole debate.
Way to take that quote out of context and then argue something else. This is the whole sentence:
I know everyone here thinks it was a big Harris win and no one denies it, so I'm just here to tell inform yall that "those of us who live in reality" don't consider it a big win for Harris or that Trump did badly.
I wasnt talking about the substance here. It was commentary about how it is being claimed that it was a "big loss for Trump" and/or a "major win for harris," which it was neither. People who actually interact with other people "in the real world" have a better understanding of how people actually perceived the debate.
Right out of the Fox News talking-point playbook. And the proper spelling would be "whiny". Unless you're comparing her sound to a horse's neigh.
Is it? I don't ever watch Fox, so I wouldn't know. Assuming and generalizing, not a good strategy.
Right out of the Fox News talking-point playbook.
Lol. Again, even. And even if it is, it's not wrong. This place is a liberal echo chamber. The sooner you're able to understand/accept this, the better off you will be overall.
Trump did just fine
I'm curious at the metric that would put that "let's get you back to bed, Nana" performance as 'just fine'.
Congratulations on both inhaling and exhaling successfully despite your condition.
Ah, the first purely ad hominem. I love it. It confirms that many here have nothing intelligent/important to add.
And your ad hominem of saying Kamala was making stupid faces that pissed you off and sounded like a whiney bitch confirms you have nothing intelligent/important to add either.
Sometimes it's not an echo chamber, and you're just wrong. Not about the spin put on the headline, just in general.
I see you're not ready to admit or able to recognize this place is an echo chamber, and that's fine. It can take time.
Hah, I guess I can't argue the first part too much. Although, I believe it's still relevant because who wants want a president making stupid faces and being whinny. Putin would own her. She's good at staying on script, but I'd like to see her have a conversation about things that she hasn't been able to rehears.
Have you done your post-birth abortion yet? It would make the world a better place.
Ah, there's the 3rd. You're just full of it. Keep'em Coming.
You do realize these are all things said in the debate, that you called normal and sane, right?
Uhg... these things you said were said in the debate, you're not even paraphrasing. You're twisting what was said, turning them into personal insults. Secondly, why are you claiming I called them normal or sane, i never said that? You're using strawman tactics erroneously to try to make a point. So, ad hominems, strawman tactics, and lying about what I said... got anything else to add?
Got any dogs? It’s almost lunchtime here.
Lol. Nice, 2 in a row. Got any more?
Nope I can’t post anymore because I’m in jail getting transgender surgery.
You post a lot of defense for Trump for someone that doesn't like Trump. You also post a lot of attacks against Harris and Walz.
Trump is at best a misinformed bumbling dumbfuck who thinks immigrants eat pets and children get surgeries in school, whereas Harris' lies are at worst the typical politician lies about supporting things she doesn't really support.
It is insane if you think these are on the same level.
Anyway, vote Harris because Trump will try to January 6th us again.
Trump did just fine
"Immigrants are eating people's pets!"
"Post birth abortions are happening!"
"Children are coming home from school having surgery done to them!"
Saying any 1 of these should be rated as abysmal. Saying all 3 and being considered "just fine" shows what a dumpster fire the Republican party is.
You are adorable, Colin Robinson.
Okay, let's be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt. What would you consider to be an unbiased, credible source of factual information? Be specific. You're the one putting out the blame, before you say anything along the lines of "it's not my job to educate you" or "do your own research". You're the one making the claim of bias.
What would you consider to be an unbiased, credible source of factual information?
Oh geez... I don't think they make those anymore... the best we can do is try to recognize the bias when we see it.
I did find a cool app recently, though. It's called "ground news". It attempts to show bias of news articles. Being left, right, or center. It is very useful, I would recommend it.
I did find a cool app recently, though. It's called "ground news". It attempts to show bias of news articles. Being left, right, or center. It is very useful, I would recommend it.
I did find this on ground news:
Articles that Harris wasn't compelling have a strong right bias, are you taking that into account?
Also, articles about Trump losing have a much stronger Central bias. I wonder what we can conclude from this...
Well, everyone can and should come to their own conclusion. One thing...
articles about Trump losing have a much stronger Central bias.
It's about 1/3 central 2/3 left. I think that is a good way to look at that.
The "it was about equal" has a higher right bias than the "Trump losing" has a left bias.
I hate trump but I agree. This wasn’t a landslide victory for Harris. She won in my opinion but only by a thin margin.
Trump claimed immigrants were eating people's pets. And doubled down when called on it. How low is your bar?
Remember when claiming immigrants were stealing and eating pets was enough to disqualify someone from being a president?
... No?
Ah, my bad, this insane new low seems to have never happened before.
Rewatch the debate. She rarely actually answered a question. deflected most of the time. I ding a candidate each time they do that.
How often did Trump actually answer a question versus deflection?
Okay, so let's ding them both equally for deflection and now let's focus on how they deflected: Did Kamala say anything nearly as batshit crazy as "schools are forcing surgery on children"?Let's put this on a scale of 1-10
10 is top
Trump was batshit crazy and lied so he gets a 1
Harris just plain deflected on a ton of stuff, so I ding her to a 2. She had ample opportunity to answer and just plain didn't. So instead of being bat shit crazy, she either wasn't prepared or wasn't able to think on her feet. Either way I give her a two for lack of answers.
So Harris was twice as good as Trump?
Again I have to ask how low your bar is. If neither answered questions, but Trump insisted on deranged delusions (he doubled down on the claim that immigrants are eating pets when challenged) how do you consider that only slightly worse than someone who didn't answer questions but lives in reality?
When Biden had a bad debate Democrats were willing to admit he had a bad debate. It was presented as "we still have to vote for him because Trump wants to be a dictator, but ya, that wasn't good."
Trump makes up absolute nonsense and people try to insist that "it was close."Umm if you go from 1 to 2 then that sounds like it’s doubled. But if you go from 1 to 2 on a ten point scale then exactly how is that doubled? By that logic going from 2 to 3 is also doubled. Yeah no.
No....no. See, 1+1=2, so we can see that 2 is double the amount of 1. 2+2=4.
Of course, the only thing you reply to is the random joke and not the actual points being made. I can only assume that means you consider the rest of my post reasonable and agree with it.
Thanks, crazy you're still getting downvoted. I guess you weren't extreme enough.
I know. All these down votes makes me sad. Hold me.