• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump is losing the debate acting like a raving lunatic

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
But she didn't. Being willing to spend money on the border is not the same as building Trump's wall:


The problem I see for her is that it is easy to frame her overt support for a Republican plank in the border bill as flip-flopping. For example, here is a snippet from the very article that you cite:

Neither Harris nor her campaign has indicated that she has changed her position. The thin piece of evidence on which this political bank shot rests is that Harris said during the Democratic National Convention that she would sign the bipartisan border security bill that failed in the Senate earlier this year...

Frankly, I don't see that legislation coming back in its current form. There will be a new Congress in place when she is President, and it is unlikely that the dynamics which created that bill will still be in place. If she wins, she might be able to secure a much better bill. It would likely include some funding for repairs an modernization of current segments of border barriers, but that is a far cry from what the public thinks of as "building the Wall." Trump himself mainly just replaced some parts of the existing barriers. Places that have no barriers tend to be fairly inaccessible and away from the main areas that people cross over in. Presenting it as building new wall tends to be something of a political bait and switch.

I'll admit that I am not someone with the political savvy to understand whether this is a good strategy on her part, albeit somewhat misleading. My gut just tells me that it appears to validate one of Trump's longstanding signature issues.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The problem I see for her is that it is easy to frame her overt support for a Republican plank in the border bill as flip-flopping. For example, here is a snippet from the very article that you cite:



Frankly, I don't see that legislation coming back in its current form. There will be a new Congress in place when she is President, and it is unlikely that the dynamics which created that bill will still be in place. If she wins, she might be able to secure a much better bill. It would likely include some funding for repairs an modernization of current segments of border barriers, but that is a far cry from what the public thinks of as "building the Wall." Trump himself mainly just replaced some parts of the existing barriers. Places that have no barriers tend to be fairly inaccessible and away from the main areas that people cross over in.
Yes, the claim that she "flip flopped" was from her support for a bill that had been written by Republicans and had mostly Republican planks. In Congress one often has to compromise to get a bill through. Being willing to compromise when they did not have control of the House is not flip flopping. It is acting like an adult and getting the job done.

If Harris wins the odds are fairly high that the Democrats will control both houses of Congress and though there still will be need of some compromise in the Senate due to the fact that filibusters exist she will not have to compromise to the same degree.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
It is conventional wisdom for candidates to pivot to the center in the general election, so they always end up appearing to flip-flop on some policies that they sold to their base during their primary run. Trump has flip-flopped on issues like abortion, claiming to favor allowing for exceptions to abortion bans that are particularly extreme. He is so confident that his supporters can be manipulated that he doesn't usually care about flip-flops. It is more difficult for a serious candidate like Harris to pull that off.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Harris was supposed to get to the root causes of immigration and failed, but now she claims she wants to build a wall to help solve the immigration problem now that it's an election year.
Where did you hear this? Where is your source?
Perhaps you keep saying "disinformation" because you don't actually have a legitimate rebuttal to the point that Trump is paying attention to the news and Kamala isn't.
As I stated, you and Trump are victims of disinformation. Trump paying attention to media means nothing since he is spreading lies about Haitians in Springfield. Who knows what media he heard that from, all that is important is that it isn't true, and Trump never bothered to check to see if it was. Even Vance stated that it's not his responsibiloity to fact check what he hears when he repeats it.
There's that word again. There's no reason I should believe your news sources aren't disinformation.
Because they are reputable. You are confessing that you can't discern reputable media from disinformation. If you don't have this abilty then you have no right to form opinions about media at all.
Do you deny that the police have reported the bomb threats as coming primarily from another country?
This has been reported in reputable media. The revorting is that most, not all, threats have been from other counties. Note that there would be zero bomb threats had Trump never mentioned the rumor of Haitians eating pets. Trump stated it as a fact, and he never bothered to see if it was true or not. It's not true. The people of Springfiled have had to endure the sonsequences of the bomb threats that were inspired by Trump's lies.
How do you know that your information not disinformation?
Because reputable media source are dedicated to ethics and accurate reporting. I was in journalism in high school and college, and they drilled ethics and objectivity into our heads. That was before FOX and Newsmax, and people knew the National Enquirer was fake news.
So... this "disinformation" is successfully swaying the minds of people with regard to Springfield and the bomb threats also hurt Kamala's chances... is this your way of acknowledging that I was right that Trump's comment will age well and this issue will swing towards Trump over time?
No. Trump continues to fall in the polls. More information is coming forth that Trump and Vance made it up, and don't care that they are lying, and causing the people of Springfield harm. This whole stunt has hurt the Trump/Vance ticket even more. I don't know how you can imagine this is anything other than an ongoing mistake.
It seems to me that your using the word "disinformation" for news you don't like, which, imo, doesn't reflect well on you.
No. I'm well informed and it is easy to spot the outrageous nonsense that MAGAs post. There are a number of careless members who routinely use poor quality media, so their poor reputation precedes them. It's easy to do a web search for any given claim, so those who use disinformation media should know better than to repeat it and cite it.
Kamala should talk about Laken Riley. It would demonstrate that she isn't just like Biden in forgetting who she is.
Irrelevant to the fact that Trump sabotaged the border bill. Nice try to deflect.
I think that's a failing on your part. If you look around the world at criminal candidates, it's not difficult to see how criminalizing them increases their popularity. One of the most famous examples would be Nelson Mandela who was sentenced to life for conspiring to overthrow the state. The US designated him a terrorist until 2008. Whenever a sentence appears to be unjust the people object to it and the accused gains popularity.
You're not explaining what is so attractive to you about the criminal candidate. Did you deliberately avoid that question? Why don't you explain it to us.
Is this not on your list of fact checks? If you think Trump called nazi's fine people, then you are the victim of disinformation.

Kamala actually had the gall to suggest Trump was anti-semitic because of Charlottesville. This lie has been looooong debunked.
She was wrong in that Trump is an empty vessel that has no real beliefs. Jews favor democrats heavily. Trump does take on the beliefs of others who he is trying to manipulate or gain approval from. That's why he can't condemn Nazis in any way.
Is to prove that you are able to find a reputable source and know what it is? Then why do you make comments that suggest you use disinformation media? You must know that your sources are bogus. And then complain that others notice it is disinformation.
This is winning issue for them. The problems in Springfield are real.
They had the usual problems of any small city. But after Trump's lie about the Haitians their problems have gotten worse. And these guys don't know when to quit.
People remember Trump's comment and that Kamala denied there are problems in Springfield.
She denial the claims Trump/Vance are making, along with everyone else like the police, the mayor, the governor, and other citizens. There is no basis for the lies these two ******** are saying.
She blamed bomb threats (which come primarily from other countries) on racism, which is an unforced error on her part.
Trump is racist, and it is his fault, with an assist from Vance. The bomb threats never would have happened witout Trump making the false claim in the debate.
Meanwhile, Trump plans to visit Sprringfield directly. Do you deny the optics favor Trump more and more as time passes, or do you not like it and so call Trump is a conman and not address any real issue?




If Trump goes it will not be good press. The more Trump pushes this lie that worse it will be for him. I think voters are getting tired of his antics and stunts.
I think I'll take a leaf from @Revoltingest and say that rest of what you are saying here isn't worth addressing further.
No rebuttal to how Trump uses disinformation and has no credibility? I guess you must agree.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
But she didn't. Being willing to spend money on the border is not the same as building Trump's wall:

Sure it is. The $650 million appropriated during the Trump administration for border wall construction to be used for that purpose.

That purpose being construct the wall.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Some people steal dogs and cats to sell them for research.
So could/would someone steal them to eat?
Its possible IMO because some people do eat them.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
It's true. Some people do. Including but not limited to Haitians.
The claim isn't "some people eat dogs and cats, maybe including Haitians". It's "Haitian immigrants in this specific place ARE STEALING CATS AND DOGS AND EATING THEM".

To try and get around this obvious lie to try and temper it within the realm of plausible possibility is to excuse lies. You wouldn't accept it if Harris just straight-up accused Trump of rape and murder, even though an argument could easily be made that "Well, people DO rape and murder".
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Donald Trump: "Haitian immigrants are building gas chambers for Americans."
Supporters: "Well, people HAVE built gas chambers..."

Donald Trump: "Haitian immigrants are planning to drop a nuke on Florida."
Supporters: "Well, people HAVE dropped nukes on places..."

Donald Trump: "Haitian immigrants are actually an intricate colony of ants disguising themselves as humans in order to trick people into their mega-hives for later consumption by their vast and terrible Queen."
Supporters: "Well, ants DO exist..."

I've never been a part of a debate that has reached this level of stupid before.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
You say it didn't happen. I say it could have happened, and not just because SOME PEOPLE SOMEWHERE HAVE EATEN CATS. I am saying that Haitians eat cats, so it's far from impossible for it to have happened in Springfield Ohio though there does not appear to be any evidence that it has happened. There are 15,000 to 20,000 Haitians living in Springfield, Ohio.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
The claim isn't "some people eat dogs and cats, maybe including Haitians". It's "Haitian immigrants in this specific place ARE STEALING CATS AND DOGS AND EATING THEM".

To try and get around this obvious lie to try and temper it within the realm of plausible possibility is to excuse lies. You wouldn't accept it if Harris just straight-up accused Trump of rape and murder, even though an argument could easily be made that "Well, people DO rape and murder".
Well Trump hasn't been convicted of murder but has been convicted of sexual assault.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
You say it didn't happen. I say it could have happened, and not just because SOME PEOPLE SOMEWHERE HAVE EATEN CATS. I am saying that Haitians eat cats, so it's far from impossible for it to have happened in Springfield Ohio though there does not appear to be any evidence that it has happened. There are 15,000 to 20,000 Haitians living in Springfield, Ohio.
IMO if someone else had said it, it would be plausible.
Trump/Vance said it so it has to be a lie.
That's it in a nutshell
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
You say it didn't happen. I say it could have happened, and not just because SOME PEOPLE SOMEWHERE HAVE EATEN CATS.
Some people are paedophiles. So if Kamala Harris accused Trump of being a paedophile, do you think that claim would require evidence, or do you think just saying "paedophiles do exist" is a suitable enough response to the accusation?

That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I know for a fact you wouldn't. Because this isn't about addressing reality, it's about distracting from the fact that Trump is obviously spreading a lie to stir up racial tension against immigrants.

I am saying that Haitians eat cats,
(citation needed)

so it's far from impossible for it to have happened in Springfield Ohio though there does not appear to be any evidence that it has happened.
So, since there is no evidence, why is Trump outright declaring it to be the case on national television in a presidential debate?

There are 15,000 to 20,000 Haitians living in Springfield, Ohio.
And not a single piece of evidence any single one of them stole pets and ate them.

So why are Trump and his cronies claiming they are, and why are you trying to obfuscate the fact that they're spreading lies by trying to pretend it's an issue about the "possibility" of it occurring rather than the fact that they just outright claimed it happened?

Do you not understand the difference?

Scratch that, of course you do. You're not stupid.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
IMO if someone else had said it, it would be plausible.
Trump/Vance said it so it has to be a lie.
That's it in a nutshell
This is delusional speaking.

The fact that it is obviously a lie makes it a lie. The fact that nobody is defending the lie - and merely the "possibility" of it being true - demonstrates bad faith engagement.

Again, Trump is a murdering child rapist. Since it's "possible" for it to be the case, it shouldn't be bad if Kamala Harris just came right out and said those things, and rather than raising the finger at her and calling her out for saying something blatantly false, what would you say if everyone instead switched to deliberating the "possibility" on the basis that sometimes people are murderers and child rapists?
 
Top