-21

No More Debates, No More Mistakes (quoththeraven.substack.com)

submitted 1 month ago by realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club to c/conservative@lemm.ee

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] glimse@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

Trump didn’t “win” the first debate, but I don’t think that’s why he’s not agreeing to another debate. And I know a lot of people are going to write this off as Trump being scared to debate Kamala Harris again, but I think we all know that’s not the case.

This guy's opinion isn't worth hearing if he thinks "we all know" that Trump isn't scared to do it again. He got rocked by both Harris and himself. It's like he was a performer doing a parody of Trump. I don't understand how anyone could watch the debate and think that he's not losing it.

She knows exactly how to push his buttons. Did you see his face when she made fun of his obsession with crowds? From then on, he did nothing but bury himself further.

He's scared. And all the Republicans saying he did poorly is triggering him further. His ego can't take it and we're watching it slowly tear itself apart.

[-] truthbait@noauthority.social -4 points 1 month ago

"He got rocked by both Harris and himself."

Yet all anyone is talking about is illegals eating pets (which we all now know is true) and how rigged the debate was because the "moderators" only "fact checked" Trump and not Camela. So, yeah, congrats on that W, Lemming. Looks real good on ya!

@glimse @realcaseyrollins

[-] glimse@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I'm not gonna tell you how to live your life or anything but isn't the "truthbait" schtick kinda played out by now? The trope's been done to death, I think you need to get more creative with your parody account

[-] truthbait@noauthority.social -2 points 1 month ago

You can politely suck my schtick. @glimse

[+] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -13 points 1 month ago

Yet her goal is to influence voters which she didn’t do. So really she didn’t win anything. It’s weird how the left thinks acting foolish wins a debate.

Debates are to change the views of voters to win the election. As of now, Trump is expected to beat Harris in the election.

So what did she “win”?

[-] glimse@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Hmmm did I say she won anything? Once again proving your inability to read.

Trump made a fool of himself then went on to say how everyone agrees he won. He rambled about disproven claims and didn't bring up any real policy. It's weird how the right thinks acting foolish wins a debate. Anyone that was positively influenced by his debate performance is a fucking moron because that was even more embarrassing than Biden's debate

[-] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Just imagine beholding Trump, everything from his very foolish appearance, to the horrible things he says, his complete lack of understanding about almost every issues (dumbfuck is still acting like other countries pay tariffs, to say nothing of retaliation and trade wars), his deranged ramblings, moody insults, defensiveness, and not being repulsed. Makes no sense to me. On the other hand I've seen people "I don't like trump, but I'm voting for him because I think he'd be better on 2A". Sure, brilliant.

[-] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

“Acting foolish” in what way exactly? She actually expressed ideas for policy and acted professional while Trump just whined, attacked with lies and moaned in a slovenly way, with a few notable outbursts about bullshit.

As of now, Trump is expected to beat Harris in the election.

Expected by whom? That does not seem to be the consensus in any media I consume or with people I’ve talked to.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -4 points 1 month ago

she constantly lied and never really answered a question.

Expected by whom? That does not seem to be the consensus in any media I consume or with people I’ve talked to.

The experts. Nate Silver predicts that Trump's odds are at 65%.

[-] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

That’s a wild analysis about her lying constantly. It’s so bizarre that someone would hear trumps endless spew of nonsense and then say that about Harris.

Sorry to have to mention reality, but that is not what Silver is saying currently:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/

Harris wins 61 times out of 100 in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election. Trump wins 39 times out of 100.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -3 points 1 month ago

It's weird that I mentioned Kamala and that you kick in talking about Trump. Are you unable to talk about Kamala?

https://news.yahoo.com/news/nate-silver-slammed-over-trump-174617514.html

No, that is what he has been saying.

Last week, for instance, his forecast gave Trump a 64% chance of winning the Electoral College while giving Vice President Kamala Harris just a 35% chance of victory, even while the same forecast saw Harris as more likely to win the popular vote and his polling averages had her leading in enough swing states to take the election.

You article is from today, so I will have to read that.

[-] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

We can discuss Harris, sure. However, the topic was a debate - so yes, the idea is comparing the two. Trump was slovenly, unhinged and incoherent, but you somehow didn't notice and claim that Harris did a bad job? Your interpretation is so distorted that I'm not sure it's worth addressing.

okay, so Silver is working for Peter Theil now. Good to know.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -2 points 1 month ago

It is weird how you think it was comparing the two when talking about Harris. It is the TDS the left has. It is weird as hell.

Who cares who Nate works for? He explains his work, it's detailed and has been very accurate. He has also said he is going to vote for Harris, as everyone should.

[-] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah bro, TDS, the left!

We were comparing their debate performances as far as I can read it, so pretty sure that's not "TDS" (which is an absurd term, and fuck Charles Krauthammer for introducing that to the lexicon - about Bush, of course). It's worth noting that you made those claims about Harris' performance while either accepting Trump's or just overlooking his frankly insane behavior.

I don't really trust anyone once Theil is involved. Maybe that's just my Theil Derangement Syndrome, since of course criticizing conservatives always means mental illness.

There are other experts who have analyses too, of course. You might check out this one:
https://fortune.com/2024/09/18/trump-vs-harris-election-odds-who-will-win/

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -2 points 1 month ago

Paywalled.

Betting odds are on Trump.

Yeah I get the weird paranoia about theil. That’s completely normal and sane. Instead of looking at the facts and the experience of the person doing the work, I’d point to the baba yaga instead

[-] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

I can read the entire article. You mean you don't use NoScript etc?

There's no "paranoia" about Theil. He's shown himself to be an incredibly horrible person and to do bizarre things like have special assistants for donating blood he is injected with. Imagine how much 'conservatives' would freak out if Obama or someone similar did that, but he's your boy, keep him.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -3 points 1 month ago

Trump is getting blood injections? I have not heard that. That’s actually a new “treatment”. I say treatment because god knows how wells it’s researched

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -4 points 1 month ago

Just noticed you cited 538 when I was citing Nate Silver. 538 has nothing to do with Nate Silver. He left some time ago and has called out the bad changes to their model.

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024

-21 points (21.6% liked)

Conservative

374 readers

56 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Blamemeta@lemm.ee

ConMod@lemm.ee

wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee