On Trump

[Dude#1279435]

No good without a pic View attachment 69776View attachment 69776

With the Trump doll, you could set him above the people talking down to them. For evangelicals he could be a god figure with his arms open saying, "I am here to save humanity from sin."

 

[Dude#1279435]

getTrumpsneakers.com

That was advertised during break when I had Hugh Hewitt on for a second. I think it's The Patriot.

 

[Dude#1279435]

I'd be curious to know if Trump would push too many tariffs in the name of MAGA....

 

[highfigh]

No good without a pic View attachment 69776View attachment 69776

Have you seen this?

 

[lovinthehd]

Have you seen this?

At the time. Wonder what Mullaly would do to him if standing next to him these days....

 

[lovinthehd]

I'd be curious to know if Trump would push too many tariffs in the name of MAGA....

He's been promising it. He doesn't actually understand how all that works, tho.

 

[davidscott]

He's been promising it. He doesn't actually understand how all that works, tho.

He wants to impose a HUGE tariff on John Deere if they move any manufacturing to Mexico. Man, the farmers that support him will be in for a rude awakening.

 

[lovinthehd]

He wants to impose a HUGE tariff on John Deere if they move any manufacturing to Mexico. Man, the farmers that support him will be in for a rude awakening.

I saw that threat. Let's put a huge tariff on his merch in the meantime....

 

[Dude#1279435]

I think it's mostly politics, though China goods Trump might be serious about.

Trump favors huge new tariffs. What are they, and how do they work?

Former President Donald Trump has proposed a 60% tariff on goods from China and a 20% tariff on everything else the United States imports.

apnews.com

 

[Dude#1279435]

Still a fav was the Doral resort incident where Trump wanted to host the G7 Summit in the good nature of free LOL. Someone said it was so he could get tens of millions in renovations from the govt. Emoluments Schmoluments was a comment from a Trump supporter saying its OK if he wants to make a little on the side. Democrats? Not so much. I liked the guy who said, 'OK. I guess now we're grifting right out in the open.' Trump said directly to the camera president Washington ran his business along side the WH office LOL. I believe that was The Hill website way back when they allowed comments. My feeling was if you're worth $2 billion you don't need the money. Therefore either Trump is greedy and/or isn't a billionaire.

 

[Trell]

 

[highfigh]

At the time. Wonder what Mullaly would do to him if standing next to him these days....

Kick him in the nads and take his wallet. Her husband could turn a club that she could use to kneecap him, too.

 

[highfigh]

He wants to impose a HUGE tariff on John Deere if they move any manufacturing to Mexico. Man, the farmers that support him will be in for a rude awakening.

Farmers haven't been able to afford the heavy equipment for a long time- when I worked in car audio in the '80s, a local company contacted us to have stereos installed in a tractor brand called 'Belarus'- they were the US importer and not long after I started working on them, I saw a news report about their equipment and the farmers said they were good enough, easier to repair because parts were available, not sold at a premium just because they came from J.I.Case, Deere etc and they didn't cost $400K. In the '80s! I didn't work on the huge equipment, but the news report included those.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

View attachment 69818

But his answer was great. All the while the moderator was talking over him trying not to let him finish. More nerfing from the media.

 

[Trell]

But his answer was great. All the while the moderator was talking over him trying not to let him finish. More nerfing from the media.

I didn't see the debate but it here is one article about it from BBC. Did BBC "nerf" as well?

>>>JD Vance has refused to say whether he thinks Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, and whether he would contest the 2024 vote if Democrats win next month.

The Republican vice-presidential candidate - who has previously said he would have challenged the 2020 result if given the chance - avoided giving answers on both issues during Tuesday night's debate.

In a head-to-head that was largely civilised in tone, he was accused by his Democratic opponent Tim Walz of "a damning non-answer" after sidestepping a question about that result and the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021. ...<<<

Vance refuses to answer whether Trump lost 2020 election

Another less charitable article about Vance's debate with Walz from center-right The Bulkwark:

>>>...Check out some of the positions Vance took during the course of the debate:

• That because Trump is crazy and unpredictable, other countries fear him—which is why Trump is good for foreign policy.
• That climate change is real and protectionism is the best way to combat it.
• That when he said mean things about Trump in the past, it was because the media had lied to him about Trump.
• That Trump governed in a bipartisan manner and “got things done.”
• That Trump saved Obamacare.
• That America has an “epidemic of gun violence.”
• That Republicans need to “earn people’s trust back” on abortion.
• That Trump isn’t a threat to democracy because he did voluntarily leave the White House on January 20, 2021.
• That America needs (1) change and (2) a president who’s done this all before.

I know how that reads on the page, but you’ll have to trust me: He made it all sound reasonable.3

In fact, Vance was so good that I wonder if this debate might become a case of catastrophic success. Because tomorrow a whole bunch of people in Conservatism Inc. are going to be talking about how Vance is the post-Trump savior they’ve been waiting for.

I wonder what Donald Trump will think about that? ...<<<

JD Vance Was So Good, It May Drive Trump Crazy

The junior senator from Ohio won the debate. But who did he win it for? (Hint: Not his boss.)

www.thebulwark.com

Here is another comment from the center-right The Bulwark:

>>>Last night JD Vance, late of cat-lady and pet-eating fame, slid into a normie skinsuit.

It worked great. Vance was charming and deft. He won nearly every interaction, owned nearly every question. He parried and pivoted with the skill of a Clinton.

This was the fourth version of JD Vance to appear in public life.

Vance 1.0 was a memoirist and Hillbilly whisperer.
Vance 2.0 was a Never Trump pundit.
Vance 3.0 was a MAGA edgelord.
Vance 4.0 is something like a cross between 2010 Elizabeth Warren and 2016 Marco Rubio, with some light nativism sprinkled in.

A reminder: Vance just turned 40. Even Sohrab Ahmari must be impressed with the pace of the JDos update cycle. ...<<<

JD Vance 4.0 Is Here

The latest upgrade to JDos aims for a chaotic-good character alignment. Not sure how well MAGA is going to take to that.

www.thebulwark.com

 

[Trell]

 

[Trell]

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I didn't see the debate but it here is one article about it from BBC. Did BBC "nerf" as well?

>>>JD Vance has refused to say whether he thinks Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, and whether he would contest the 2024 vote if Democrats win next month.

The Republican vice-presidential candidate - who has previously said he would have challenged the 2020 result if given the chance - avoided giving answers on both issues during Tuesday night's debate.

In a head-to-head that was largely civilised in tone, he was accused by his Democratic opponent Tim Walz of "a damning non-answer" after sidestepping a question about that result and the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021. ...
Vance refuses to answer whether Trump lost 2020 election

Another less charitable article about Vance's debate with Walz from center-right The Bulkwark:

>>>...Check out some of the positions Vance took during the course of the debate:

• That because Trump is crazy and unpredictable, other countries fear him—which is why Trump is good for foreign policy.
• That climate change is real and protectionism is the best way to combat it.
• That when he said mean things about Trump in the past, it was because the media had lied to him about Trump.
• That Trump governed in a bipartisan manner and “got things done.”
• That Trump saved Obamacare.
• That America has an “epidemic of gun violence.”
• That Republicans need to “earn people’s trust back” on abortion.
• That Trump isn’t a threat to democracy because he did voluntarily leave the White House on January 20, 2021.
• That America needs (1) change and (2) a president who’s done this all before.

I know how that reads on the page, but you’ll have to trust me: He made it all sound reasonable.3

In fact, Vance was so good that I wonder if this debate might become a case of catastrophic success. Because tomorrow a whole bunch of people in Conservatism Inc. are going to be talking about how Vance is the post-Trump savior they’ve been waiting for.

I wonder what Donald Trump will think about that? ...

JD Vance Was So Good, It May Drive Trump Crazy

The junior senator from Ohio won the debate. But who did he win it for? (Hint: Not his boss.)

www.thebulwark.com

Here is another comment from the center-right The Bulwark:

>>>Last night JD Vance, late of cat-lady and pet-eating fame, slid into a normie skinsuit.

It worked great. Vance was charming and deft. He won nearly every interaction, owned nearly every question. He parried and pivoted with the skill of a Clinton.

This was the fourth version of JD Vance to appear in public life.

Vance 1.0 was a memoirist and Hillbilly whisperer.
Vance 2.0 was a Never Trump pundit.
Vance 3.0 was a MAGA edgelord.
Vance 4.0 is something like a cross between 2010 Elizabeth Warren and 2016 Marco Rubio, with some light nativism sprinkled in.

A reminder: Vance just turned 40. Even Sohrab Ahmari must be impressed with the pace of the JDos update cycle. ...

JD Vance 4.0 Is Here

The latest upgrade to JDos aims for a chaotic-good character alignment. Not sure how well MAGA is going to take to that.

www.thebulwark.com

I can definitely see the bbc quotes as a nerf. At least somewhat. I think it’s also funny how Tim dangerfield went after Vance’s “non answer” which he actually attempted to speak on while walz reply to his own lying was sometimes I’m a knucklehead. Wow…That’s as bad as Kamala’s debate, in which the very first question was completely ignored. Are we better off now than four years ago? She rattled off some over rehearsed canned response about NOTHING.
At least Vance can articulate a response that addresses the actual words pointed at him. Such as the one about being fact checked in the meme you posted above.

 

[Trell]

I can definitely see the bbc quotes as a nerf. At least somewhat. I think it’s also funny how Tim dangerfield went after Vance’s “non answer” which he actually attempted to speak on while walz reply to his own lying was sometimes I’m a knucklehead. Wow…That’s as bad as Kamala’s debate, in which the very first question was completely ignored. Are we better off now than four years ago? She rattled off some over rehearsed canned response about NOTHING.
At least Vance can articulate a response that addresses the actual words pointed at him. Such as the one about being fact checked in the meme you posted above.

I thought we were talking about the Waltz-Vance debate? Sure we can expand it, but I'll leave that be in this post.

So, BBC is a UK public service company (not some kind of Fox "News" propaganda outlet) but their reporting is similar to what I read here in Sweden (left and right). My guess, I've not checked, that it's similar in most of Western Europe.

What about the two US center-right articles I quoted and linked to? Are they "nerfing" too? Many (most?) of that site are Republicans or former Republicans that have been part of Republican campaigns at national level. As real conservatives they find Trump as well as Vance abhorrent. Btw Mitt Romney is for sure not a fan of Vance.

In any case you confirmed what the first center-right The Bulwark link wrote about Vance in the Walz-Vance debate: "I know how that reads on the page, but you’ll have to trust me: He made it all sound reasonable."

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I thought we were talking about the Waltz-Vance debate? Sure we can expand it, but I'll leave that be in this post.

So, BBC is a UK public service company (not some kind of Fox "News" propaganda outlet) but their reporting is similar to what I read here in Sweden (left and right). My guess, I've not checked, that it's similar in most of Western Europe.

What about the two US center-right articles I quoted and linked to? Are they "nerfing" too? Many (most?) of that site are Republicans or former Republicans that have been part of Republican campaigns at national level. As real conservatives they find Trump as well as Vance abhorrent. Btw Mitt Romney is for sure not a fan of Vance.

In any case you confirmed what the first center-right The Bulwark link wrote about Vance in the Walz-Vance debate: "I know how that reads on the page, but you’ll have to trust me: He made it all sound reasonable."

I’m ok to keep it the Vance walz debate. It’s what I was posting about anyways. However, I appreciate the bulwark links and do agree. He made it all sound reasonable. That’s the point of debating. Present your case in an articulate poignant fashion. IMO, Vance did that. Walz did not.