Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 24 2024 07:54am)
That "bipartisan" border bill was full of poison pills and strongly denounced by the vast majority of Senate Republicans, even before Trump spoke out against it. Multiple GOP senators laid out in detail why this bill sucked and they opposed it. The bill was categorically unsuited to accomplish its ostensible goal and solve the border crisis.
In reality, McConnell and this Lankford guy had negotiated a bad bill which was a betrayal of many longstanding GOP goals with regard to immigration. A bill which would have done far more to enshrine the current, unacceptable status quo at the border than to actually secure it. The whole purpose of this bill was to deflect from the utter failure of the Biden/Harris administration on the border and to give Democrats a convenient talking point which uncritical partisans can regurgitate.
The leadership of the border patrol union endorsed the bill, but countless rank and file members spoke out against it. Union leadership being in cahoots with Democrats is nothing new. More generally speaking, it is a political phenomenon which can be observed all across the Western world and all across different industries that there is a growing gulf between union leadership, which is happily on board with liberal and/or woke policies, and the actual working-class rank and file union members.
What was so bad about the bill? You're speaking vaguely about it. Democrats supported the bill so before Trump went against it, it was likely to pass.
The border patrol union in cahoots with Democrats? Uh.... what are you talking about?
Also, this is a hallmark of people who never want to get anything done. Complain that a bill isn't exactly what you want, therefore the situation stays the same. Would the bill have made the situation better or worse?
Quote (Goomshill @ Aug 24 2024 07:58am)
You're talking about different lenses, and they aren't mutually exclusive. Nor are debates and speeches to a convention the same thing, the latter isn't competitive Trump won the debates in 2016 because he outperformed his opponents in charisma, not by winning a policy argument. He clearly won by every metric, the audience reactions, polling, the vote, the nomination, the election. Kamala won her speech at the DNC, because in front of a friendly audience with the bar set sea-level by Biden, all she had to do was get up on stage without falling over and pissing herself. That doesn't translate to an ability to debate, and the last debate she was in she performed horribly and placed dead last among the major candidates, as I said she came in even below Mike Bloomberg and dropped out after sub 3% polling.
You want to claim Trump is a bad debater because you disagree with his style, substance and personality, but you're patently ignoring his results. Whether you like it or not, every debate Trump has been in has boosted his campaign or outright demolished his opponents. Without debates, Trump would have lost at every step of the process. For contrast, even though I disagree with the style, substance and personality of Kamala, I recognize when she's getting a boost from her performance. Those are the results, she's better off today than she was a few days ago.
As to what we'll see: I know Trump's debate record is exemplary and Harris's debate record is abymsal. I'd say the most likely two results are that either Trump gets another big bump from debates, or that Harris reneges and dodges debates altogether. Most likely we're going to see one total debate in this entire election, no press conferences or public questions taken by Harris and overall just emulating Biden's basement plan of 2020 except without the Covid excuse.
I'm too lazy to look up the data, but I would be surprised if it showed that Trump benefitted from every debate he's been in. Since you seem to have confidence in the data that Trump immediately benefitted from every debate, go ahead and post it here.
I think Trump benefitted from the primary debates for sure, and obviously the 2024 debate, mostly because Biden was a walking corpse. I'm not judging it with my Trump-hating lenses... Trump was strong and disciplined in the debate with Biden. It was an impressive performance based on the standards of how he usually performs in debates.
Also I believe there's a distinction between winning a debate and the politics of a debate... and debates and political conventions are different things. Hillary won all her debates with Trump, but politically it probably didn't do much to benefit her.
@bold:
Man you sound so ridiculous sometimes.
The idea of Harris dodging the first debate is absurd. My guess is that Harris wins the debate, but not in a way that moves the dials much politically. And if the second debate doesn't happen it'll be because Trump drops out.
This post was edited by IceMage on Aug 24 2024 04:42pm