It was a peculiar ‘debate’; some would say that it was not a debate, with two ABC reporters ( i.e US ABC) asking both parties to comment on subjects they, the reporters, chose. They asked one, then gave the other the nod to reply or give his or her version.

Harris didn't have much in the way of policies, and was asked by Trump why the ones she was ‘promising’ - big spending of other people's money - hadn't been put into practice over the past three and a half years.

Trump. Well he spent most of the time responding to Harris’s criticism, and that of the stone-faced moderators; was very scathing about Harris’s failure to stop illegal immigrants, and made a strange claim that immigrants were eating their neighbours dogs and cats.

No winner or loser. Trump's final speech was quite strong. But, really, it was just a load of politicking that would not have impressed or stirred anyone.

The Forum's little band of Trumpsters must be mortified, Harris made Trump look the fool he really is. 'Hot Lips' is said to have won the debate 63% to 37%, and the Dangerous Doctor Donald was left eating his dogs and cats. Seems if Harris was a "clean cut", bible bashing young white guy she'd be leading the poll by 63 to 37 and the Donald would be out looking for one of those "black jobs" he raves on about!

The debate is “said to have been won…”, by whom? Experienced adjudicators? Highly unlikely. These so-called debates are beyond adjudication. The “decision” most likely resulted from careful questions to get wanted answers - or just unsolicited comments - by people expressing their political bias.

It is impossible to choose winners or losers. Neither would-be President did themselves any favours; and, most certainly, American voters will not have learnt anything they didn't already know.

At least we were spared the Kamala Cackle: quite harmless, even attractive in the woman herself, but not very presidential.

Kamala Armageddon Harris. About to complete the unfinished task of Obama/Biden to blow up the Middle East by first destroying Israel, a task predicted to take two years from her Inauguration resulting from a scorched election.

Kamala Harris set the tone by walking across the space
separating the podium from Trump's, and reaching out
with a handshake, introducing herself, and saying,
"Let's have a good debate." It was a powerful move.
Which continued throughout the debate with Harris
exuding a level of confidence - as Trump's unravelling
did not.

Harris tapped into Trump's weaknesses and unsettled
him. Trump became a spectacle of little substance.
He did himself no favours by ranting, lying, getting
angry, and failing to stick to issues.

Harris pushed his buttons to help Trump express himself in
the manner most revealing to his character.

Trump seemingly could not shake off his fury at being
taunted over his supporters leaving his rallies early and
also at being fact-checked by moderators at every turn.

Trump missed multiple opportunities to land attacks and
ultimately argued with the moderators about whether Haitian
immigrants were eating pets in Ohio.

There's no doubt that Harris succeeded in rattling Trump,
baiting him, and both she and the moderators fact-checking
some of his most outrageous claims.

It was a bad night for Trump. Harris walked off smiling.
Trump walked off angry.

Unfortunately, Trump's content
is very rarely fact-based and relies heavily on emotions
rather than rational responses.

I hate to think what Trump will do if he loses the election.

Folks, let me tell you, this debate? Wow. Biggest, greatest debate ever. Everyone’s talking about it.

Nobody’s ever seen a debate like that!' And it’s true. Kamala - poor Kamala, she had no energy. No stamina. She was reading from a script, probably written by Biden, who probably slept through the whole thing, we know that.

And, you know, the moderators, they couldn’t handle Trump, they couldn’t keep up. Sad!

Now, let’s talk economy, okay? Nobody does the economy like Trump. Best jobs, best trade deals, no inflation. Zero inflation, folks! People were paying like two bucks for gas, it was beautiful, the best economy in the history of the world, probably. And now? Total disaster. Inflation, gas prices, nobody can afford bacon! Who’s paying for this? The middle class is destroyed. Kamala - she has no clue, no clue at all.

And abortion? Roe v. Wade? Done. Trump ended it. Nobody thought he could do it, but he did it. People wanted it back to the states. That’s what Trump did, and now Kamala’s talking about a national ban? Total fake news, folks. Trumps not signing anything. Lies! All she does is lie. Typical Kamala.

Then we had immigration. Oh boy, where do I even start? The border’s wide open. Wide open! Millions pouring in, folks, and they’re not sending their best. They’ve got criminals, They’ve got drugs - lots of drugs, bad people pouring in, and what’s Kamala doing? Nothing. She’s the ‘border czar,’ but where’s the wall? Trump built the wall, the strongest wall, and they stopped it. Unbelievable.

And January 6th? Give me a break! Trump said, 'Go peacefully,' everyone heard him. Peaceful, very peaceful. But Pelosi and the mayor, they didn’t want to stop it. Trump offered the National Guard, 10,000 of them, maybe more, the best National Guard, and they said no. Obvious setup. Everyone knows that.

So, folks, this debate? Huge win for Trump. People are saying it already. Kamala was lost. No clue. Trump's got the rallies, he's got the numbers, he's going to win so big, it’ll make your head spin.

I am very suspicious of the US media since I had unmistakable evidence
observed by me of their modifying statements on video to suit their
political masters. It was so blatant that it showed they do not have
to await orders, they just go ahead immediately.

I thought Kamala Harris did quite well in her presentation.
Trump needs a course in public speaking.
Frankly, I am bored with it all, it is so dragged out.

Dear John D,

Brilliant!

But scary.( smile).

Thanks, Foxy.

I’ve been hoping for a review from mhaze, but he hasn’t shown. So, in his absence, I’ll do it for him and get it out of the way:

Oh, here we go again. Another desperate attempt to poke fun at Trump because, let's face it, that's all you’ve got. No arguments, no substance, just cheap shots and tired impersonations.

Maybe instead of wasting time trying to ‘out-Trump’ Trump, you could focus on the actual issues? You know, things like the economy, which, by the way, was thriving under his administration until the pandemic - a global “crisis”, in case you forgot. But you people can’t let go of the obsession, can you? Mock his speeches, but at least he’s not reading off a teleprompter like a mindless drone, unlike the politicians you defend.

And let's talk about your “intellectual” champions like Harris. Please, she stumbles through basic facts half the time and pretends she’s a champion of the people while her administration is driving this country into the ground. But yeah, go ahead, keep throwing out your little jokes. While you're at it, maybe explain how making fun of Trump fixes inflation or the border crisis. No? Didn’t think so.

You can laugh all you want, but the joke’s on you when the US is in shambles, and you’re still focused on cheap satire instead of reality.

Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 12 September 2024 9:27:35 PM

Dear John D.,

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker:

"A little sarcasm is like a nice dash of paprika."

.

I didn't see the debate, but I understand Biden was trailing a long way behind Trump so he passed the relay on to his running mate, Kamala Harris, younger and brighter and full of energy. She quickly caught up to the tyring old Trump and they ended up in a dead heat.

It seems he's a bit tired and doesn't want another race.

.

I'm usually ambivalent on who should be US President, its always a choice between a Tweedledee and a Tweedledum, two of a kind, the two servants of the master the American Military/Industrial (didn't Eisenhower get that one right), which because of its very nature pushes the world towards total destruction. Usually the two leading protagonists are relatively intelligent human beings, there have been notable exceptions, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, we have one now its called Donald Trump, who's already strutted his stuff once and shown the world what a complete idiot he really is. So lets hope Harris "wins", but don't expect too much.

The good news is that Trump says he will not debate Harris again. Nobody needs it, anyway.

These so-called debates make absolutely no difference to election results; and the usual he won/she won opinions are always based on personal politics - not on what was said by either camp.

Who won?

The fact-checks clearly showed that newborns are not
being executed and immigrants are not eating people's
pets to name just a couple of outrageous claims
that the former US president, Donald Trump made during
his melt-down in the debate with Vice President Kamala
Harris.

It was obvious from the start that any other debater
would have been seen as having a melt-down by the number
of times that Donald Trump went off the rails during the
debate.

What needs to be done is - people need to stop putting
a different bar for Trump's behaviour than for anyone
else. It's obvious from watching news channels that
people are so used to Trump behaving abnormally they
make allowances for him. That is concerning.

Donald Trump's behaviour should not be accepted nor
excused and definitely not normalized!

cont'd ...

Most of us saw the frail, tired, old former President
Joe Biden as he appeared during the previous debate.
We should now admit that the former US president -
Donald Trump's recent behaviour was neither normal,
or presidential. He also appeared as a man having a
melt-down. Old, tired, and downright weird!

ttbn,

Yes, many will simply decide who the winner is based on their political persuasion, but there are ways to control this and objectively analyse the debate, such as:

- fact-checking the claims;
- identifying logical fallacies;
- writing up an exhaustive rubric;
- playing devil's advocate;
- maintaining an awareness of the common cognitive biases.

The list of critical thinking techniques we can use to ensure objectivity is seemingly endless.

JD

As long as the ‘fact checking’ is not giving someone a bell, then that person saying, “Nah: nothing like that going on here”. That's what happened with Trump's claim about pet eating. There might be illegal aliens dining on dogs or picking at pussies, or there might not be. There are more important things to be discussed about America's illegal entrants than their diets. We know that some cultures have eaten cats and dogs in the past, and might still do so.

Unless I dozed off, there was no fact-checking for the Laughing Lady, and she was not made to ask all of the questions put to her.

Your other options are available to us, too. But the unyielding on both sides of politics had made up their minds who the ‘winner’ was going to be well before the ‘debate’ was staged.

Trump is no wordsmith. When he was asked about something he had said in the past - it wasn't meant to be taken literally - he said that he had been ‘sarcastic’, when he had actually been ironic. He said that babies were being “executed”, when they are not. But to jump on that word is to admit that you are hard up for genuine things to criticise the man. Hell, it's bad enough that babies are ripped out before they are born and worse: if they are born alive then spend several hours dying in a dish.

Our relationship with America has been pretty much the same whether their government is Democrat or Republican. Poor old Joe Biden hasn't been running America for the past three and a half years. If Harris gets the job, nobody could seriously think that she will be running America either. If Trump is to be the next President … well, he has already done the job, and can be judged accordingly. But, Harris? She has only the things she didn't do as Vice President on display.

ttbn,

To clarify, I was only referring to us as individuals, not the moderators or the political pundits writing articles after the fact.

Granted, though, an exhaustive rubric would be excessive for anyone other than those who have a lot of time on their hands.

Dear John D.,

Donald Trump will not be capable of not reacting to how
badly he did during the debate. And, his supporters
will back him, making all sorts of excuses. He and they will
defend his performance. None of them will admit that he burst
into flames on stage.

The man tried to make a case for himself that he'd won. Look
at his desperate and shock appearance after the debate in the
post debate spin room at the Pennsylvania Convention Center.

We'll see him reacting to this for weeks, and weeks, and weeks,
with his supporters and his grievance mind-set he and they will
undoubtedly continue complaining about the moderators and the
rules and fact-checking indefinitely.

It's always others who're to blame. Never him.
Everybody knows that he never ever loses. That nobody leaves
earlier at his rallies. That he won the last election. That
he achieved so much during his last term in office. That he
is respected around the world. That everybody loves him.
And, that he'll make America great again. Just as he's done
thus far.

Excuse me, I need to go and throw up.

I wanted to see two leaders espousing their policies.
I didn't see any leaders.
I saw very little in the way of serious policy.
Overall, a very poor showing by both participants.
Almost a shambles.
A leader needn't denigrate or disparage an opponent.
He simply leads the discussion away from him.
So the opponent then becomes sidelined, and unimportant.

Here's the best political cartoons on the 2024
US Presidential election:

http://usnews.com/news/elections/cartoons/cartoons-on-the-2024-presidential-election

Enjoy.

Indeed, Foxy.

Trump's term as president was apparently very chaotic behind the scenes, with his minders working overtime to contain him. Even to the point where they'd deliberately distract him like a small child by steering his focus in ways that would minimise the meltdowns and keep his fragmented thoughts focused on issues that needed attention.

I think Trump's supporters are a fascinating cohort. In my view, they can be divided into two broad categories:

1. Those who recognise his flaws but overlook them because he’ll implement changes they want to see and because they believe he’s shaking up the status quo in ways they like.

2. Those who are so deluded that they buy into his image as a successful businessman and a strong leader and see him as a sort of messianic figure who represents hope for America’s future. To these people, the constant criticism he faces is merely proof of his righteousness.

The whole phenomenon has provided an abundance of material for the study of cognitive biases (1) and cult-like followings (2). Psychologists are well aware of this and have ceased the unique opportunity Trump has provided them.

But it's the first group that I'm mostly interested in.

You'd think people would question why their preferred policies have to come packaged with someone as erratic and divisive as Trump. It's as if they’ve convinced themselves that only someone willing to flout the norms of decency and decorum could push their agenda through.

The cognitive dissonance... on one hand, they acknowledge Trump's flaws, but on the other, they see him as a necessary hammer to dismantle what they think is broken. It’s as if his imperfections are not just tolerated but reframed as strengths.

But never once does it occur to these people that the inability to find someone more polished or competent suggests that maybe the problem isn't so much the system they're fighting against, but the nature of the ideas they're pushing - ideas that seem to demand a half-wit wrecking-ball and can somehow never be found in an intelligent statesman.

(Funny that!)

Dear John D.,

Thank you for your great analysis.

We've lived and worked in the United States for close
to ten years. We experienced a great deal during
that time. Both good and bad.
We left the country to come home to Oz
because we didn't like the direction that the
country was going even back then in the 70s.

I was fortunate enough to work in a private university.
I was exposed to a wide variety of views. However, I
don't regret the decision we made to come home.

It will be interesting to see how things pan out
in the upcoming US election. For all our sakes,
I hope that sanity will prevail and Trump will lose.

No matter gets in, American citizens will lose.

A poll by the New York Post suggests that the 'debate' made no difference to anything, including the way Americans will vote. That's the way it has always been. But they keep on doing it, and exciting the excitable, who have goldfish memories, and who blather the same nonsense every time.

According to the BBC undecided Americans were impressed
by Harris. But did the debate shift the vote?

Brookings Institution tells us that the Presidential debate
accomplished more for Harris. As one male voter said -
"He couldn't even look at her."

Battleground state voters generally awarded Harris a win.
According to Sky News - Trump says he won.

It might help for some voters to see more policy specifics,
however predicting anything is risky at the best of times.

We all should just wait and see - and hope for the best.
For America and for us as well - because we depend on the
US for our defence.

I hate to think what Trump will do if he loses the election.
Foxy,
If he wins I hate to think how much lower the Democrats can go. I imagine it'll be like here when Labor loses, the bulk of bureaucrats will go into sabotage mode again.

The reality is that ever since Donald Trump entered
US politics in 2016, the Republican Party has become
more extreme. It's also become smaller and Trump's
unwillingness to cross his base makes it difficult
if not impossible to attract moderates and independents.

The Republican Party is on the wrong side of every major
issue facing the American people - including the nation's
security. Trump admires autocrats like Putin.

Trump lost the 2020 election and then incited an
insurrection. Since then he's moderated neither his
rhetoric nor his behaviour. On the contrary, he's become
more extreme.

Are there enough voters willing to put him back in The
White House? Only time will tell.

However, Australian Liberal Party Leader, Peter Dutton
would be wise to pay attention to US politics and learn
what not to do.

"Scoop" Nuisance from Rupert Murderous's publication 'The Daily Scandal' reports that The Dangerous Doctor Donald has been enjoying the very popular "Fricassee'd Cat" at his favorite Haitian restaurant 'The Charred Pet' in his home town of Boonkersville Pennsylvania. When confronted by the MSM Donald exclaimed "FAKE NEWS!"....."Liar, liar, pants on fire!"...Those AFRICAN'S from Haiti, takinggggg, BLACK JOBSSSS!".

Who knows what to believe these days, but the latest story on pet-eating illegal immigrants in Springfield, Ohio is that one woman “was told” that a single cat went missing, and the animal had been eaten by immigrant neighbours.

This poor, silly woman decided to post the story on social media, and now regrets it.

In another story, Donald Trump has vowed to deport all immigrants in Springfield “back to Venezuela” - even though they come from Haiti!

Lord love a duck! The bullsh.it mainstream media (the deportation threat comes from the BBC) means that they cannot be taken seriously in these days of total wankery.

Paul 1405. You really need help. You posts are getting more bizarre and loony. You are drunk, drugged, or insane.

Talking about mental illness?

Allen Frances M.D. who was Chair of the Department of
Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University
writes about Donald Trump's alleged mental disorder,
which has become a popular pastime not just among mental
health professionals but also among politicians,
journalists, pundits, comedians, and ordinary people
gathered at coffee breaks.

Allen Frances tells us that Trump's consistently bizarre
sayings and rhetoric in general as well as his doing
things have triggered a bill to establish a commission
"on presidential capacity" and a suggestion that a
president be removed from office via the 25th amendment
on the grounds that he is mentally unfit to be
president.

Allen Frances argues that it was a mistake to elect Trump
in the first place but that Trump's disagreeable traits
in no way indicate that he's mentally ill.

Instead they reveal Trump to be the ruthless self-promoter
he's always been.

We're told that Trump is an undisputed poster boy for narcissism.
But that's nothing new. Think most celebrities, many
politicians, a fair percentage of writers, artists, lawyers,
doctors and professors.

Trump's conspiracy theories have been, and continue to be
his political success. His past-long standing claim that
former president Obama was not born in the US launched
Trump's presidential run. His "crooked Hillary" claims
helped win his election. And "fake news" holds his base
in his thrall.

Trump repeats the same rhetoric and words over and over
again - because they successfully work up the crowd.
Trump is crazy like a fox.

If we based things on the assumption that mental illness
should somehow automatically disqualify someone from
high office if this was policy according to Allen Frances
then Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill both would
have been lost to history - due to their battles with
depression.

cont'd -

cont'd -

Allen Frances writes:

"Trump is a mirror of the American soul and a surface
symptom of our deeper societal disease. He may not be crazy,
but we certainly were for electing him. We must not waste
this Trumpian dark age. If we don't learn from it - we will
keep making the same mistakes."

It is worth stressing that, in the US, the choice in the coming presidential election is between a career politician and a successful businessman, disinterested in any personal advancement from attaining the presidency. Indeed, in his last term, Donald Trump gave his salary away.

Come to think of it, for our own upcoming election, we have a similar choice between our own candidates: Albanese, who has absolutely no experience outside of politics, and Dutton, who has: police and his own business.

The trouble with most politicians is that they don't have a clue about the realities of real life.

Talking about successful businessmen?

Donald Trump?

There are so many news reports from various sources on the
web. It's interesting how they all say the same thing.
Like:

"Given that Donald Trump is the same man who bankrupted two
Atlantic City casinos, launched a short-lived airline, and
was recently charged with fraud, The former president's
finances have consistently been an adventure in accounting."

" Of course Donald Trump's status and wealth are critical to
his public image. He's sold people on the folly that he's a
successful businessman who could engineer an American
resurgence."

"Much like everything involving Donald Trump this was and is
pure fiction, a con. One that's continuing to unravel
before our very eyes."

We're told that for Trump the presidency has always been
performative. Standing behind the podium, before adoring
crowds - We're told that is what Trump lives for.

We're told that:

"The actual business of the job - holds little interest
for him. We're told that the world knows now for sure that he's
consistently teetering on the brink of financial ruin. Therefore
it isn't hard to believe that he'll focus even less on his
presidency and more on sharing up his personal fortune and
empire."

We're told that:

" that means that the American people will once again take a
distant back seat to Trump's personal concerns and needs of
fighting the courts et cetera. While Americans continue to
get sick, and die. "

And finally we're told that:

"Trump will do what he always does - he will put himself, his
interests, and needs at the head of the line."

There's more at:

http://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/28/trump-new-york-times-tax-returns-president

Kamala Harris made it quite clear - she cares about the
American people. Trump only cares about himself.

The BBC in 2017 reported that an estimated 30 million dogs and 10 million cats throughout Asia – including stolen pets – were killed and eaten. China was the worst culprit. The reports came from the Humane Society International. There were no stats on Ohio.

As for Trump's business affairs, we'll of course The Guardian would come up with all that stuff. That’s what they and their readers do.

Pre-debate, Reuters gathered a group of undecided voters.

Following the debate, 60% said they now leaned Trump.
30% now leaned Harris.
10% remained undecided.

"The fact-checks clearly showed that newborns are not being executed"
http://tiny.cc/m12mzz

No. Not executed. Just left gasping until they die. Up to 5 hours in one case reported by a midwife to a Senate Enquiry. So, Trump was wrong. Big win for Left.

Trump needs to refine his language, and the Left it's-my-body females and apologists for abortion need to explain why it's OK for an actual HUMAN BEING, denied a life, to die that way.

Mr Trumster,

Fella, as a sycophantic Trumpster, believe what you want, after all he's your kinda guy, a bigot, a racists, hateful scum bag, a liar, a convicted criminal, he must tick all the boxes for you.

Someone in South Australia eats dog, ttbn lives in South Australia, ttbn what did you have for dinner?

Here's a flashback you may have missed...

How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately "elevated" Donald Trump with its "pied piper" strategy
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
- An email released by WikiLeaks shows how the Democratic Party purposefully "elevated" Trump to "leader of the pack"
November 9, 2016 9:30PM

>>Republican Donald Trump, a far-right demagogue who campaigned on a slew of bigoted, xenophobic policies, has won the 2016 presidential election in a shocking victory few people predicted.

What was not often acknowledged in Trump's heated race against Democrat Hillary Clinton, however, was how her campaign fueled his rise to power.

An email recently released by the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks shows how the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party bear direct responsibility for propelling the bigoted billionaire to the White House.

In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning.<<

And something more recent:

Trump's threat to punish countries that drop US dollar will speed up de-dollarization
http://youtu.be/4sYacRjSND4

the Republican Party has become more extreme.
Foxy,
Wrong again, the democrats are now extreme in their vindictiveness & lowest of low morals !
Just look at yourself, you're supporting them !

Hi AC,

In a lesser of two evils scenario, Harris seems the more "intelligent" choice, but its only relative, Trumps scores a 1 out of 10 with me, Harris is a 2. I believe Harris pandering to American greed will push the world along the road to annihilation, but at a slower rate than Trump, but to annihilation never the less. The American Military-Industrial Complex created the likes of North Korea, Iran, the Russian state of today, etc its starved Africa of resources, destroyed the Middle East, turned most of Asia and South America into lunatic basket cases. The big danger now is the rise of China, and how that American Military-Industrial Complex will antagonise it to such an extent, using its political and economic muscle, plus sycophantic states like Australia, to a point where nuclear war is the only option left.

mhaze,

There are no laws in the US allowing for the execution of newborns. All the article you linked to manages to do is to provide a very twisted interpretation of the laws. Their purpose was to ensure medical decisions remain in the hands of medical staff rather than the government.

Your media literacy is appalling.

Walz’s repeal of reporting requirements for babies born alive after failed abortions was part of a broader effort to expand reproductive rights in Minnesota. The change was designed to reduce unnecessary state oversight of medical procedures and shift responsibility to healthcare professionals who are guided by medical ethics. The law doesn't allow newborns to be neglected or executed. All it does is remove bureaucratic burdens, leaving the care of these rare and tragic cases to medical professionals.

But it seems "big government" is okay when it suits us.

When infants are born alive after failed abortions, doctors assess their viability, and if they're too premature or severely compromised, comfort care is provided, not life-saving measures that would cause further suffering. The idea that these infants are just left gasping for air (as ttbn incorrectly puts it and the article suggests) while doctors stand by is a gross misrepresentation of the medical reality.

Could you link me to the polling figures you provided? I couldn’t find any record of a Reuters poll with the numbers you mentioned. Or are you just cherry-picking again?

To quote Reuters,

"WASHINGTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump 47% to 42% in the race to win the Nov. 5 presidential election, increasing her advantage after a debate against the former president that voters largely think she won, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Thursday.
The two-day poll showed Harris with a five percentage point lead among registered voters, just above the four-point advantage she had over Trump in an Aug. 21-28 Reuters/Ipsos poll."

Trumpster provide the evidence that;

Pre-debate, Reuters gathered a group of undecided voters.

Following the debate, 60% said they now leaned Trump.
30% now leaned Harris.
10% remained undecided.

“Exactly 1500? What are the chances? Or just fabricated?” - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23106#396622

Exactly 60, 30 and 10 percent? What are the chances? Or just fabricated?

Paul 1405,

What an embarrassment you are: to yourself, to Online Opinion, to regular posters, and probably your own family.

If I cared, or if you were part of my family, I would suggest that you speak to your GP about a cognitive test. You are in the age group where the test is recommended. If you are verging on what I think you are, if it is caught early, there are measures that can be taken. People who care about themselves are recommended to take the test every two years.

I would also suggest that you stop drinking alcohol.

Indyvidual,

The moral frameworks of conservatives and so-called progressives are in total opposition. Nothing will change that.

I am looking forward to the Walz-Vance chat. I watched Walz going solo for the first time a few days ago. The man is a lunatic. I made a big mistake thinking that he could keep Harris in check if the worst happened. If anything, he is worse than she is.

John Daysh,

You know bugger-all about babies surviving abortion after they are dumped in a dish. In Australia, a proposition to legalise proper care for them was spurned by our decaying Parliament.

ttbn,

Your 'Nuh-uh!' response suggests otherwise.

But please do enlighten me as to why I know "bugger all."

http://j.gifs.com/vb20nr.gif

"Trump's threat to punish countries that drop US dollar will speed up de-dollarization"

He won't need to. Subsuming their economic well-being to the geniuses in Beijing or the Kremlin will be punishment enough.

We're told that apparently there's been another
attempt on Donald Trump's life in West Palm Beach.

We still don't have all the facts but after watching
"60 Minutes" last night - it seems that the general
political climate in the United States has become
more heated and more vitriolic. Where violence is
part and parcel of daily life. A horrible outcome -
that can't be excused, condoned, or brushed aside.
Something needs to be done. There's a lesson for
our country - not to allow this kind of thing
to happen here.

Obviously it's what sells in the US, and it is part of
the social media age, where being moderate doesn't
get you any clicks or followers.
What horrified me after watching
"60 Minutes," was that it seems that in the US people
do believe violence is justified to advance political
objectives.

And many of these people are gun owners.

It's concerning that Trump stokes anger and fear on a
daily basis with his political rhetoric. This hasn't
softened after the first attempt on his life. It will
probably only increase now.

A responsible leader would talk about uniting the
country instead of dividing it. But from what we've
seen we can't expect that from Trump.

Well as usual when they know they're on the wrong side of any moral stance, the fascists of the left revert to semantics. This time around the word "executed". Oh the baby wasn't given a blindfold and cigarette before being put up against the wall therefore it wasn't executed. Trump is such a liar!!

"Asked Wednesday about Democratic Virginia delegate Kathy Tran’s admission that her bill would allow for abortions to be performed up until the point of birth, Northam defended the legislation and suggested that women should be able to determine whether their born-alive infant should receive life-saving care.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said"

Late term abortion is an abomination and a crime against humanity. Democrats and their flying monkeys won't defend it, yet support legislation to allow it. Trump has said he favours a limit beyond 20 weeks and for this the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) assert he's anti-woman. Fools or liars? Probably both.

"The change was designed to reduce unnecessary state oversight of medical procedures and shift responsibility to healthcare professionals who are guided by medical ethics. "

How wonderfully naive. The change was done to hide the abomination of late term abortion from the public's view knowing fully well that only rad-fems and anti-human radicals were in favour of it. "Medical ethics"...Bwahaha. Are these the same ethics that allowed the sale of body parts from aborted babies?

mhaze,

No, this isn’t about quibbling over the word “executed.” Of course, you knew that. This is just more of your trademark deflection. Accuracy is important, nevertheless. I bet you’d be all over some lefty if they used similarly inaccurate terminology. Boy, would you ride that one for all it was worth!

Unsurprisingly, you’re twisting Northam’s words to fit your narrative. His comments were about complicated, rare cases involving non-viable or severely compromised infants, where families and doctors have to make difficult medical decisions. His statement was not advocating for the neglect or killing of babies. Cherry-picking quotes and distorting their context doesn’t make your argument any stronger.

It is, however, a prime example of just how unwilling you are to ever engage in a topic honestly.

Late-term abortions are extremely rare and usually involve severe fetal anomalies or threats to the mother’s life, but you talk about them like they’re routine. They're anything but. The public isn’t being shielded from "the abomination of late-term abortion"; it's being protected from your misleading fearmongering.

Your cheap shot at "medical ethics", with yet another one of your debunked conspiracy theories, is as shallow as it is predictable. This time, it's the sale of fetal body parts. The repeal of these reporting laws doesn’t abolish medical ethics; it ensures that complex medical decisions stay between patients and doctors, not bureaucrats or political ideologues.

But, again, it appears we're all for big government when it suits us.

Dear John,

Perhaps you are not old enough to know that a “dear john” letter was. They were sent by girls to tell the boyfriend that it was all over between them.

Well, I'm no girl, but I'm all over you, mate, and your twice-sent tumbleweed video.

As for “enlightening” you on your ignorance of the workings of abortionists’ butcher shops, any normal person wouldn't hesitate to tell me why I was wrong. You don't, because you can't.

Like Trump, I believe abortion is OK only in the case of a threat to the mother's life, and in the case of rape - plus if the baby is found to be disabled and would have a miserable life. As for the it's-my-body-and-I'll-do-what-I-want females: bullsh.t! We are all given life to spend in natural ways, and it is the role of women to bear children. Some women don't like that role, and choose not to be mother's. Fair enough. There are methods to avoid pregnancy. But killing babies in the womb, or letting them die when they are living when aborted, is a bloody disgrace.

Also a bloody disgrace is Foxy’s post blathering about a psychiatrist, a disgrace himself, “alleging” that Trump has a mental disorder without having examined Trump himself.

And of course, the allegation has “become a popular pastime not just among mental
health professionals but also among politicians,
journalists, pundits, comedians, and ordinary people
gathered at coffee breaks.”

All experts on mental problems of course, being politicians, journalists, pundits, comedians and ordinary people.

The psychiatrist in question is an octogenarian, older than Trump, older than Biden. It would be interesting to know what all the “experts” think about him.

Someone drew a cartoon showing Trump escaping from immigrants with two kittens under his arms. The caption: “Grab the pussies”.

ttbn,

You posted:

"Also a bloody disgrace is Foxy's post blathering about a
psychiatrist, a disgrace himself "alleging" that Trump
has a mental disorder without having examined Trump himself."

And you went on about it.

Well, I can only be held responsible for what I actually do
post. Not how you interpret it.

Dr Allen Frances argued in fact that Trump's disagreeable
traits in no way indicate that Trump is mentally ill.
That instead they reveal Trump to be the ruthless self-
promoter he's always been, and more.

Go back and re-read what I actually did post.

Apology accepted.

A shot has been fired through the fence of the golf course where Trump was playing. He is OK, and a suspect has been arrested

Dear ttbn,

Did I know what a ‘Dear John’ letter was? Let’s just say that when I saw you had started your reply to me with that, I got a little lump in my throat. You may be wrong all the time - abusive, even - but at least you’re sincere.

I’m glad you like my tumbleweeds, but they just look silly if you actually reply.

//As for “enlightening” you on your ignorance of the workings of abortionists’ butcher shops, any normal person wouldn't hesitate to tell me why I was wrong.//

And an honest person would request or invite you to elaborate or be more specific to ensure they didn’t straw man you.

You have made some big assertions in what appears to be your attempt to enlighten me, so I’m unfortunately going to have to ask you even more questions if I’m to tell you for sure if and why you’re wrong.

//We are all given life to spend in natural ways, and it is the role of women to bear children.//

This looks like a fallacious appeal to nature.

Who or what “gave” us life? Our parents? Not all parents of girls “give” their children life to bear children. I certainly didn’t have that expectation of a possible daughter when my wife and I were trying to conceive her.

You make this sound like an objective and absolute truth, yet give no reason to believe it is such.

//There are methods to avoid pregnancy.//

Yes, and none of them are foolproof. Nor do all women have equal access to birth control. White-knuckling it with abstinence has proven to be an even bigger failure than contraception, so that’s not a solution.

So, unless I’m missing something, THAT is why you’re wrong.

I do find it endearing, that a cold, combative, unforgiving, and harsh-sounding guy like yourself somehow manages to find a soft spot for foetuses, however. It’s almost as though your stance on the topic of abortion really just boils down to politics and a need to remain consistent with the conservative position on all issues.

Hi Foxy,

Please stop re-posting old fart octogenarian rubbish on this forum (smile). The 81 year old ttbn, can't stand some old fart octogenarian who doesn't know his Arthur from his Mather, coming on here and posting 15,877 bits of diatribe nonsense! It must STOP!

JD, who used the literal meaning of 'executed' to try to accuse Trump of lying, says that, when he used the literal meaning of the word 'executed' he didn't use the literal meaning of the word 'executed' but then tries to say that using the literal meaning has meaning....or something.

"you’re twisting Northam’s words to fit your narrative.” ". Standard JD there. Whenever information comes forth that he's prefer wasn't bought forth he ASSERTS, (JD always asserts) that its cherry-picked or out of context, without ever attempting to show how its cherry-picked or out of context. But if all you have is assertion...needs must.

"Late-term abortions are extremely rare".
Rare is one of those words that can mean whatever you want it to mean. OTOH http://tiny.cc/f07mzz. 20 a year of live birth abortions in one Australian state seems quite un-rare to my thinking.

"Your cheap shot at "medical ethics", with yet another one of your debunked conspiracy theories, is as shallow as it is predictable. This time, it's the sale of fetal body parts. "

Debunked? Well there is video evidence of negotiations going on over the sale of body parts and that evidence was so conclusive as to result in court cases around it. But mere proof isn't enough to get JD to alter his assertions.

"But, again, it appears we're all for big government when it suits us."

Nup. You completely misunderstand the ethics here. (quelle surprise). Its not about wanting government involved in all abortion decisions - quite the contrary. But to my way of thinking, aborting and killing a living human even if that human is less than perfect, is murder. And enforcing laws against murder is a governmental function.

NB knowing that our oh-so-very-ethical JD (at least in his mind) will distort that last paragraph, let me note that I don't see all abortion as murder. I completely support unfettered rights to abortion up to 20 weeks but not thereafter.

They've had another crack at getting Trump. Where lawfare failed, warfare might yet succeed. They are truly terrified that his popularity might exceed their ability to rig the election.

The 'debate' would have brought the latest reptile out of its hole.

Even little old Australia has its share of mental cases - a couple of them here. Just imagine how many of them there are in the US.

" White-knuckling it with abstinence has proven to be an even bigger failure than contraception, so that’s not a solution."

There's a bird involved in delivering babies. Its called the stork.

And there's a bird involved in avoiding babies. Its called the swallow.

John boy,

No access to contraception? But access to abortion? Come on!

You don't know who gave us life? You are not into creation then? More of a monkey man? No spiritual side?

You think that you are an honest person? Nothing self-aware about you.

You find me “cold, combative, unforgiving, and harsh-sounding”? Well, yes: when I'm dealing with knobheads. And, I am happy to tell you that I am not a ‘people person’. I am polite, friendly and affable most of the time with most people, but it's all an act learnt out of necessity to make a living dealing with arseholes.

So, buddy, don't think that you can insult me.

mhaze,

Usually your attempts to discredit someone are at least derived from something they actually say or do. It seems now you’re happy to just make it all up.

//JD, who used the literal meaning of 'executed' to try to accuse Trump of lying …//

Where did I do that? I haven’t said anywhere that Trump lied.

//… says that, when he used the literal meaning of the word 'executed' he didn't use the literal meaning of the word 'executed' but then tries to say that using the literal meaning has meaning...//

I’ve said nothing about the literal or a colloquial meaning of the word ‘execute.’ What drugs are you on?

Moving on, I see you’re using your tiresome old ‘assertion’ claim to discredit something I’ve said - which was still not an assertion - with, ironically, an assertion.

Boy, you get yourself tied up in some terrible knots sometimes!

So, you’re not going to tell me why I’m wrong about your misrepresenting or Northam’s words? You’re just going to deflect with a claim that I’m asserting something? This is what can happen when your only focus is winning debates and showing people how clever you are.

//20 a year of live birth abortions in one Australian state seems quite un-rare to my thinking.//

Perhaps you don’t understand percentages, then? You also conveniently overlooked the reasons I mentioned as to why these rare forms of abortion occur.

//Debunked?//

Yes, debunked. The courts found that the footage was deceptively edited to create a misleading narrative. Just because someone was prosecuted for illegally obtaining footage doesn’t mean the sale of fetal body parts actually happened. You’re clinging to a discredited conspiracy theory.

You claim I misunderstand your position on big government, but then go on to argue for government intervention in what are deeply personal, medical decisions, calling it "enforcing laws against murder." But here’s the thing: those laws already exist, and abortion, especially late-term abortion, is highly regulated.

Time to rethink your strategy, mhaze. The deflection just isn’t working.

American commentator and art critic, Roger Kimball, thinks the the biggest loser in the ‘debate” was the US ABC, and what he calls its two ‘immoderators’, who turned what was supposed to be for the candidates to expose themselves to the public into a repeated pecking and correcting of Donald Trump, while “passing over lie after lie, over lie after lie, over lie over lie committed by Kamala Harris”.

Very astute. Very true.

“Harris came to the podium with four or five set strength-through-joy speeches that she inserted into her performance. Substituting a contemptuous rictus-cum-moue for her signature cackle, she attacked Trump but never made it over the hard place that has her firmly tied to the disastrous policies of the last four years”.

Spot on. It's what I saw

ttbn,

Yes, it’s entirely possible for someone to have easier access to abortion than to contraception.

In many places, especially in the US, comprehensive reproductive healthcare - including contraception - can be difficult to access, especially for marginalised groups. Meanwhile, states may have abortion providers available but not enough affordable or accessible contraceptive options. These aren’t mutually exclusive realities.

So, you're claiming a god gave us life and that creationism is an accurate account of natural history? Okay, now you just need to provide evidence of that. I certainly won’t hold my breath there.

//You think that you are an honest person? Nothing self-aware about you.//

I didn’t say I was honest. All I did was state what an honest person would do in such circumstances. But thank you for noticing that my behaviour was consistent with that.

You know what an honest person wouldn’t do? Change the subject with a personal attack.

//So, buddy, don't think that you can insult me.//

I genuinely wasn’t trying to insult you. I was simply pointing to the stark contrast between the cold, hard, and hateful person you at least show yourself to be here, and the expressed soft spot you hold in your heart for foetuses. The contradiction can undermine your position and your claims on the matter, so see it as constructive criticism.

mhaze Trumpster,

How are you going with that 60,30,10, Reuters lie you posted. Spoken like a real Trumpster, another one of your bloody lies from The Donald!

ttbn, you should take a chill pill, and toddle off to bed. Nursey will be along shortly to tuck you in.

mhaze,

Who is "they"? My understanding is that there was only one gunman.

//They've had another crack at getting Trump. Where lawfare failed, warfare might yet succeed.//

Or is this part of another one of your crackpot conspiracy theories?

Is it the Jews again?

//They are truly terrified that his popularity might exceed their ability to rig the election.//

Another conspiracy theory! (At least, that what they want you to think.)

There's no evidence that the 2020 election was rigged in any meaningful way. Investigations from both sides, court cases, and multiple audits found no fraudulent activity that would have changed the outcome of the election. Every time these claims were investigated, they were shot down; by people from both parties, too, as well as independent bodies.

Even agencies like CISA called it the most secure election in history. Yet, some people are still pushing the fraud angle, but none of these claims have held in court or under serious scrutiny.

Frauds investigating other frauds always arrive at the same result. Naive Australians have no idea how bad corruption in the US is; it is a way of life.

Remember, America is a country where Presidents are assassinated. Would-be Presidents are shot at. Children in schools are regularly shot dead. What's a bit of corruption to people like that.

Things on the whole are much faster in America:
people don't "stand for election",
they "run for office".

ttbn,

Your responses are typical of people who engage in conspiratorial thinking.

Claiming that frauds are investigating other frauds, without presenting any evidence for that claim, only demonstrates your willingness to dismiss evidence and replace it with personal belief as a way of shutting down conversation before it starts by assuming that everyone involved in the investigation is compromised.

It's interesting, too, that you bring up the notion of corruption being a "way of life" in the US. This is just an easy out for avoiding facts: paint the entire system as irreparably corrupt so no evidence matters.

In reality, systems like audits and investigations exist to keep corruption in check. If the whole system was compromised, we wouldn’t see members of both political parties regularly being held accountable, or robust mechanisms to challenge and review election processes.

All your response does is reveal your mindset. It doesn't make a convincing argument.

As an aside, Trump has tweeted that he ‘hates Taylor Swift’. That should prove unsuitability for the Presidency and bring about another assassination attempt.

And the latest nutjob to take a shot at Trump has been on the FBI's radar since 2019.

What's a little bit of election fraud to these jokers!

JD

I am not interested your impertinent lectures, nor do I give a stuff about your your wacko beliefs. Your head is as big - and as empty - as Foxy’s, and you are only slightly saner than Paul 1405.

ttbn,

Well, you gave civil-ish discourse a go for a bit there, and it was a nice change.

Now, it seems you're back to your good Christian self with the hurling of insults and making baseless assertions about the content and accuracy of my replies because you have no answers to them.

Just as Jesus would do.

Unless, of course, you can explain to me exactly why my “beliefs” are “wacko”?

http://j.gifs.com/vb20nr.gif

ttbn,

Talking about empty heads?

An open mind is not the same as an empty head.

And, judging others as being empty-headed when your
own is like the Bermuda Triangle doesn't make you
any smarter or give you any cred.

Try again.

"Yes, debunked. The courts found that the footage was deceptively edited to create a misleading narrative."

Well that's just not true. The courts found no such thing but Planned Parenthood made that assertion. Which is why the unedited footage was also released which showed the exact same discussions about selling foetal body parts. Still its not surprising that you fell for this since, as we've seen, you always accept, fervently and with alacrity, anything the authorities tell you to believe.

So you reject evidence of late term murders because as a percentage of (what? exactly) they are in your view, rare. I wonder if the dead kids would agree that their deaths were inconsequential?

I call for the government to enforce the law of murder and you think I'm calling for more laws. What a dill!

"So, you’re not going to tell me why I’m wrong about your misrepresenting or Northam’s words?"

You make an unresearched, unsupported, unsupportable assertion and then demand that I disprove the mere assertion.
Did you know that the third moon of the second planet in the Alpha Centuri system is made of strawberry yoghurt. I'll leave you to disprove it.

__________________________________________________________________-

Paul wrote: "How are you going with that 60,30,10, Reuters lie you posted."

Its always cute when Paul demands evidence for something he doesn't want to be true, given that he (1) wouldn't know evidence if it hit him in the arse and (2) has specifically said he refuses to provide evidence for his daffy claims.

Still to prove how much better I am than him.... http://tiny.cc/gkamzz

Mhaze,

You're still dodging the main points with deflections and exaggerations. Let’s break it in a way that will hopefully make doing this more difficult for you:

Footage and courts:

You claim that the courts didn’t find the footage to be deceptively edited, but that’s exactly what happened. The heavily edited videos you’re referring to were discredited because they misrepresented the conversations.

Releasing "unedited" footage afterward doesn't undo the damage caused by the selectively edited version, nor does it change the fact that these conversations were framed to mislead. If the case is as airtight as you claim, why did multiple investigations (including Republican-led ones) find no wrongdoing?

You’re still clinging to a debunked narrative, and it's telling that you choose to ignore the outcomes of multiple legal investigations.

Late-term abortions and murder:

You continue to incorrectly refer to the rare cases of late-term abortions as "murders," but again, these are highly regulated medical decisions involving severe fetal anomalies or threats to the mother’s life.

You can toss around inflammatory language all you want, but the law and medical ethics don’t support your argument that these are murders. And no one is saying these deaths are "inconsequential" - they’re tragic, but that doesn’t mean they’re routine, nor does it justify your oversimplified framing.

Government enforcement of laws:

You claim you’re just asking for the government to enforce murder laws, but the fact is, these cases aren't breaking those laws. Late-term abortions are regulated, and murder laws are enforced. What you’re advocating for is the further policing of deeply personal medical decisions.

Northam’s words and your deflection:

Your example of strawberry yoghurt on a moon is a weak analogy and doesn't apply here. Northam’s words were clear and involved difficult, medically complex situations. You took his words out of context to suggest he was advocating for the killing of newborns, which is simply untrue, you’re yet to provide any credible evidence showing that my interpretation is wrong.

If you're going to continue with this argument, at least engage honestly with the facts instead of throwing out conspiracy theories and wild analogies.

G'Day John,

"If you're (mhaze) going to continue with this argument, at least engage honestly with the facts instead of throwing out conspiracy theories and wild analogies."

Please remember mhaze is a devout Trumpster, and like The Dangerous Doctor Donald himself, lying and conspiracy theories comes naturally to both of them.

"Releasing "unedited" footage afterward doesn't undo the damage caused by the selectively edited version,"

The unedited version wasn't release "afterward", but was in fact released concurrently. The edits were simply to remove periods where nothing happened. You're just making this stuff up as you go, aren't you?

Which makes your admonition to " at least engage honestly with the facts" rather hilarious.

mhaze,

Whether the unedited footage was released concurrently or afterward is irrelevant. The edited version was deliberately cut to create a misleading narrative. The courts and multiple investigations agreed on this.

The fact remains that the selectively edited version of the footage shaped public perception in a way that the unedited footage didn’t rectify, regardless of when it was released - you’re living proof of that.

Your entire position here has been reduced to focusing on a technicality about timing, while ignoring the main point: the deceptive intent behind the editing. If there wasn’t anything misleading about the edited version, why was there such widespread agreement, even across bipartisan lines, that it misrepresented the facts?

Not so “hilarious” anymore, is it?

Life becomes so much easier when you’re just honest. You should try it sometime.

Some posters might be interested to know that both ‘debate’ moderators are Democrats.

Some posters may also be interested to know that:

Donald Trump's political affiliation has changed numerous
times. He registered as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987,
switched to the Reform Party in 1999, and the Democratic Party
in 2001,. and then back to the Republican Party in 2009.

Some posters may also be interested to know that Senator
J.D. Vance, the current Vice Presidential nominee leading
up to the 2016 election, Vance publicly called Donald
Trump "reprehensible", " a fraud", and an "idiot".
He stated that Trump could be - "America's Hitler", and
Vance defined himself as a "Never Trumper".

His family has close ties to the Democratic Party.

It would appear that some people's political views can and do
change.

"Whether the unedited footage was released concurrently or afterward is irrelevant. The edited version was deliberately cut to create a misleading narrative. The courts and multiple investigations agreed on this."

Well you're the one who was asserting that the full version was released later. Now that you find that to be false, you ASSSERT it doesn't matter.

But you are completely wrong to claim that courts ruled that the editing was deceptive. You're just making this up as you go, aren't you? The court case was about claims that the taping of Planned Parenthood staff was illegal and that they gained access to premises under false pretences. There were no claims in court that the tapes were false or misleading. As with most things you just want it to be true and in JD world wanting it to be true is the same as it being true.

"while ignoring the main point: the deceptive intent behind the editing. "

Except you provided not a skerrick of evidence that it was deceptively edited. At the very least you could have linked to Planned Parenthood's claims that it was deceptive but then I would have shown you the analysis that refuted that. So best just keep making unevidenced claims, I guess.

David Muir is not listed as having a party affiliation.
He has moderated several Democratic and Republican
Presidential debates. He has
been on the forefront of major political coverage and
has interviewed a plethora of prominent people.
His reputation is well known as an experienced journalist
and moderator.

Linsey Davis is also experienced in presidential debates and
elections. She does not share any political beliefs on air
or on social media. She often covers both sides of politics.

"Some posters might be interested to know that both ‘debate’ moderators are Democrats."

They work for the US ABC so of course they are Democrat.

But new evidence is emerging that the fix was in. http://tiny.cc/a4fmzz

A whistle-blower has made an affidavit that states that the ABC staff "worked closely with the Harris campaign in sharing the substance of the questions, avoiding certain topics, agreeing on the staging, committing to fact check Trump and not Harris, and more disturbing details."

As I said after the rigged 2020 election, Trump will be remembered as the last democratically elected president of a once great democracy. These people have no committment to democracy but just to power and they'll do anything to keep it.

In that same regard, its now revealed that the Biden regime is investigating Robert Kennedy Jr, who committed the sin of opposing the Democrat power structures, for something that happened 20 years ago. Suddenly they decide it is worth investigating. Corrupt regimes often use lawfare to silence their opponents.

"It would appear that some people's political views can and do
change."

The great ones aren't bound by loyalty to the party but instead loyalty to the nation. Reagan was also a Democrat for several decades but, as he explained it, the party left him rather than he leaving the party. It is said that JFK's policies would put him on the right wing of the Republicans these days.

mhaze,

Still dangling there by that last thread of irrelevance and deflection, I see.

You’re right in that the court case was about illegal taping, but that doesn’t change the fact that multiple sources - including news organisations and independent analysts - found the footage to be misleading.

The point I made about timing was in response to your claim, but I’m not shifting the goalposts here. Whether the full footage was released concurrently or later doesn’t change the fact that the edited version was cut to fit a specific narrative. That’s the issue you keep dodging.

Since you’re apparently incapable of searching the internet yourself, here you go:
http://www.mediamatters.org/planned-parenthood/comprehensive-guide-deceptively-edited-videos-used-against-planned-parenthood
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/anti-abortion-group-admits-to-falsifying-latest-video
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video

The findings were reviewed by multiple sources, including Forensic Science Analysis Firm Fusion GPS, which confirmed that key parts of the conversations were omitted to misrepresent the actual content.

So, instead of continuing to dodge with technicalities about what the court case was about, maybe acknowledge the reality: the videos were deliberately edited to mislead, regardless of when the unedited footage was released.

Earlier JD wrote: "The courts found that the footage was deceptively edited to create a misleading narrative. "

Now he admits the courts said no such thing and somehow in his idiocy thinks that proves him right!! What a fool.

So to try to back up his idiocy he links to Planned Parenthood claiming that the footage was edited. The people accused of selling body parts says the tape is deceptive. Wow, how convincing is that!!. What a fool.

I note that nowhere has JD denied that body parts were being sold.

Mhaze,

I agreed that the court case was about illegal taping. Being someone who is more interested in deflecting and character assassination, however, you ride the ultimately insignificant error for all it’s worth. Would you like me to dwell on every instance you’ve misspoken here?

It still makes no difference, by the way.

//So to try to back up his idiocy he links to Planned Parenthood claiming that the footage was edited.//

“Personally I try to never evaluate the message based upon the messenger. I prefer to look at the actual data.” - mhaze (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10452#362839)

Hypocrite.

That was only one of the links, by the way.

//I note that nowhere has JD denied that body parts were being sold.//

It was strongly implied a couple of times when I referred to this claim as a mere conspiracy theory. You are yet to provide any evidence for your claim.

Donald trump is more than just a sideshow. He's a
crooked buffoon and he's getting weirder and worse.
Cruel, creepy, and corrupt.
Republicans got what they wanted in Trump. Now they risk
being destroyed by it.

“David Muir is not listed as having a party affiliation.
He has moderated several Democratic and Republican
Presidential debates. He has
been on the forefront of major political coverage and
has interviewed a plethora of prominent people.
His reputation is well known as an experienced journalist
and moderator.

Linsey Davis is also experienced in presidential debates and
elections. She does not share any political beliefs on air
or on social media. She often covers both sides of politics.”

Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 18 September 2024 9:57:23 AM

And how do you know this, Foxy? You usually bend over backwards to supply “proof” of your claims.

Why not this time? The potted history of both these characters is meaningless to whether or not they are Democrats. So, how about telling us how you know they are not. “Not listed” as having a party affiliation means nothing

JD, ya berk, there's a massive difference between evaluating a case based on the evidence and treating the claims of the accused as evidence.

BTW, when Planned Parenthood officials were put under oath they admitted to altering their methods so they could get undamaged body parts to sell. http://tiny.cc/uifmzz

But JD, who always falls for the official line, won't accept that. As George Costanza said "It's not a lie if you believe it".

Now JD is claiming butt-hurt because I point out that his claims about the courts were all falsified.

mhaze,

Your link doesn’t support your claim. The officials denied any wrongdoing under oath, and let’s not forget that multiple investigations - including ones led by Republicans - found no illegal activity.

The testimonies were officials discussing the altering of techniques to better preserve fetal tissue for donation, which was done legally. It complied with both in federal law, and with the need for the patients' consent.

Your argument boils down to selective interpretation of testimony and ignoring the overwhelming evidence that contradicts your conspiracy theory. It’s the standard cherry-picking from you that we’ve all come to know and love.

The distinction between altering techniques (which is legal) and altering procedures (which is not) was made clear, yet you blur the lines to suit your narrative.

So no, your link doesn’t support the claim that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling body parts. At best, it reiterates allegations that have been repeatedly debunked by independent investigations. You’re just recycling old talking points from a discredited source.

Time to re-evaluate your approach, because continuing to push this only makes you look sillier and sillier.

ttbn,

What to know about moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis?

You can Google many sources of your choosing on the web if
you're really interested. The information is there.

Cheers.

Foxy

I know more about them than you do, obviously. Google? Come on! Anyone can put anything on Google, as you well know. It's your go to for everything.

No. I'm interested in the list Muir doesn't appear on as a democrat. But as usual, the only list you can produce is your list to the Left.

I'll bet my shirt on the two ABC moderators being on the opposite side to Trump, and Leftist voters, just as our ABC employees are.

Once again, no evidence from you. None expected: your lack of ability or lack of will provide backup is enough.

JD,

When you seek to change the terms of the discussion, its a gift that proves you realise you were wrong all along.

I didn't make any claims about the legality of the abortions. yet now you are trying to claim that all was okey-dokey because it wasn't found to be illegal. When you have laws that allow for the dismemberment of kids at any stage so long as they are still in the womb, then pretty much anything is legal.

My very first mention on this was about the ethics of the process NOT the legality. Now that you realise the ethics are questionable as I originally said, you suddenly want to talk about the legality of it.

You might also need a lesson in ethics as well, not to mention logic and honesty.

___________________________________________________________________

Now on to more substantive issues with more substantive people....

Although it seems that the ABC (US) decided to only fact check Trump in the debate, others weren't so reticent...
http://tiny.cc/kcgmzz

ttbn,

http://hellomagazine.com/celebrities/717554/meet-debate-moderators-david-muir-linsey-davis-kamala-harris-donald-trump/

This confirms that little is known about David Muir's political
leanings as well as Linsey Davis's personal life.

Could you please supply us with links that you've found telling
you they're both Democrats. Back up your own claims.

Thank You.

The Pope reckons Harris is the lesser of two evils, suggesting that America’s 70 odd million voters might vote accordingly. Many of those Catholics would say the Pope should stick to his own job, and keep out of politics, immigration and mythical climate change.

Francis has been the worst, most useless Pope in my lifetime. A real commo in my opinion.

His “lesser evil” is big on abortion. Trump is against abortion. Perhaps Francis is not aware of what those in his trade - particularly Catholics - think about abortion.

While it has been suggested that 52% of people identifying as Catholics might say OK to abortion, it's never been OK for the Catholic Church. If Pope Frank wants to get people back into the pews by going along with such sins, there is not much point in maintaining the Church, nor Popes who don't preach the faith.

Foxy,

Your reference says nothing about the politics of the two moderators. I have always thought that you spray all of your “links” around knowing that most people will never look at them. I don't usually, but I will be carefully looking at yours in future. I've read enough about even well known academics putting up crap references that are not relevant to their claims.

One article doesn't “confirm that little is known” about the political leanings of the two people in question, and it is ridiculous of you to say that it does: and even more ridiculous use it in this context.

mhaze,

You’re trying to rewrite the conversation now. My original argument has consistently been about both the legality and the ethics of the situation, but you keep shifting your focus whenever you realise one angle isn’t working for you.

Let's set the record straight:

You claim now that your argument has always been about ethics, not legality, yet your insistence on repeatedly referencing court cases and investigations clearly shows you were pushing a narrative that involved legality. I addressed both because, frankly, both matter when it comes to your claim that Planned Parenthood was doing something wrong.

You haven't actually made a compelling ethical argument. All you’ve done is throw around inflammatory language about "dismemberment of kids" while ignoring the medical, legal, and ethical standards that guide these procedures. If you want to talk ethics, let’s discuss the real-world medical complexities that lead to these decisions - ones that aren’t nearly as black-and-white as your oversimplified narrative suggests.

It's ironic that you're lecturing me about honesty and logic while continually dodging the fact that multiple investigations found no wrongdoing, legal or otherwise. You’re trying to reframe the argument after being backed into a corner, but your selective focus is only making it more obvious.

At least stay consistent with your arguments, instead of trying to spin the discussion each time your claims fall apart.

I give up. JD just makes it up as he goes and then claims he's ethical.

Show me where I talked about the legality of the issue JD. We both know you can't and we both know you're just fabricating here. I only mentioned the courts in response to you raising them as an attempted and failed proof of your daffy claims. You finally admitted you got your claims about the courts wrong after I'd gently led you to the truth but now you backtrack. You are truly a disappointment.

My original and only point was about the ethics of selling body parts. Show me where I said otherwise. You claimed the courts showed the video was falsely edited and proving you wrong on that was the ony reason I mentioned the courts.

But your lack of ethics here means this conversation (although it was less of a conservation and more of an exercise in teaching you logic and truth seeking)...this conversation is over. You're not worth the effort.

mhaze,

Of course you give up. You’ve backed yourself into a corner that is impossible to get out of without some concessions.

//Show me where I talked about the legality of the issue JD.//

“Its not about wanting government involved in all abortion decisions - quite the contrary. But to my way of thinking, aborting and killing a living human even if that human is less than perfect, is murder. And enforcing laws against murder is a governmental function.”
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10473#364343)

“I call for the government to enforce the law of murder and you think I'm calling for more laws.”
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10473#364365)

//We both know you can't and we both know you're just fabricating here.//

Classic mhaze right there. Don't you look silly now?

//You finally admitted you got your claims about the courts wrong after I'd gently led you to the truth but now you backtrack.//

No, you only mentioned it once. I then corrected myself.

//My original and only point was about the ethics of selling body parts. Show me where I said otherwise//

See above.

They also weren’t selling body parts, but you’re still claiming they were. They were donating tissue with the required consent.

//You're not worth the effort.//

Bye bye, mhaze.

A quick correction, mhaze.

No, you weren't talking about the selling of body parts in the words of yours that I quoted.

The the main issue was that body parts were never being sold, yet the video was edited to make it look like they were.

"Oh, So NoW iT'S aBoUt WhEtHeR oR nOt BoDy PaRtS wErE bEiNg SoLd? WhY wErE yOu BaNgInG oN aBoUt LeGaLiTiEs ThEn?"

It was always about that, mhaze. I mentioned the legalities of the situation because selling body parts is illegal in the US - whether they be from the born or the unborn.

Like I said earlier, life becomes so much easier when you're honest (and when you own up to your own mistakes, too, I might add).

You really should try it sometime.

ttbn,

Kindly supply us with your evidence to back up your
claims that both moderators are Democrats.

Kindly back up your own claims.

Thank You.

Fox News writes that Trump wishes Biden had not called
him. "He was so nice to me." Trump said that both
President Biden and Vice President Harris were "so nice",
in their calls following an apparent assassination
attempt on Trump over the week-end. Trump hinting it
made it more difficult to attack them.

Will this change anything? Probably not.
The former president has repeatedly called Biden the
worst president in history and has attacked Harris's
intelligence and laugh, while claiming she's a Marxist
who would destroy the country.

Then Both Biden and Harris have warned Trump is a
grave threat to democracy and freedom. The two have
now both condemned the assassination incident and
political violence more broadly.

Perhaps all these people aren't all that "bad" in real
life. It's just that politics seems to be a blood sport.
Right?

Hi Foxy,

In the normal context of democratic liberalism, you would think it would be a no brainier for Harris to be leading Trump 100% to zilch. Considering Americans have had 4 years experience of Trump, BUT not in America.

"Then Both Biden and Harris have warned Trump is a
grave threat to democracy and freedom. "

Trump goes through a gruelling primary against a series of serious contenders and is democratically elected by the Republicans to be their representative.

Biden, using all sorts of secret devices including outright lawfare (http://tiny.cc/vxkmzz), forces any contender to his leadership such as Sanders and RFK Jr to give up in exacerbation at the lack of democracy in the process. Then having stolen the primary Biden is exposed a dotty old fool in the one place he could hide (the debate). So having won the primary, Biden is overthrown in a palace coup by a bunch of back-room manoeuvres. Then Harris, who has never won a single primary vote in 6 years of trying, is appointed by those same backroom cadres as the unelected but unopposed candidate.

And Trump is the threat to democracy!!

Dear Paul,

It appears that it's going to be a close race in
the US. I think Harris is ahead by about six points
after the debate. But that doesn't mean she'll win.
We'll have to wait and see.

Talking about politics and leadership? Look at the
stuff-up the Brits made with Brexit. Look at
Netanyahu and what Israel's doing. Look at all the
internal probs of the Liberal Party under Dutton -
and so it goes.

All very disheartening.

A political party who nominates a candidate who openly
promises to end elections, imprison all his critics, who
has swinging political beliefs, is against laws and
calls all of his opponents criminals, denounces peaceful
protesters as mobs and calls any reporting he dislikes
as "election interference" and "fake news". Is not a
threat to democracy?

Well, I guess he does it so routinely that some people
don't notice it anymore.

There's more at the following link:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-is-a-threat-to-democracy-saying-so-is-not-incitement.html

mhaze,

There’s nothing special or extraordinary about what Biden or the Democrats did there. Both sides of politics do it.

The republicans did the same to John B. Anderson (1980), Ralph Nader (2000), Gary Johnson (2012), and Evan McMullin (2016).

As usual, though, you spin it to look like it’s specifically a corrupt activity of the group you don’t like.

"There’s nothing special or extraordinary about what Biden or the Democrats did there. "

Oh really. When was the last time a sitting president was overthrown in a palace coup?

", you spin it to look like it’s specifically a corrupt activity of the group you don’t like."

No spin required. It was corrupt. And anti-democratic. The people voted for Biden to be their representative and the people were ignored and pushed aside.

"A political party who nominates a candidate who openly
promises to end elections, imprison all his critics, who
has swinging political beliefs, is against laws and
calls all of his opponents criminals, denounces peaceful
protesters as mobs and calls any reporting he dislikes
as "election interference" and "fake news". Is not a
threat to democracy?"

Foxy demonstrates what she's fallen hook, line and sinker for all the lies coming out of the mainstream media. It must be a day ending in 'y'.

“Then Both Biden and Harris have warned Trump is a
grave threat to democracy and freedom”.

And that nonsense is now recognised as one of the reasons there have been two attempts on Donald Trump's life. The Democrats and their supporters must be so proud of themselves. Lawfare, now attempted murder, which could be the real thing before the election.

Two great ways to prevent your opponent from being elected.

On all the days ending with Y
mhaze's comments make us cry
So to get rid of the hazy Trumpster blues
Lets fill our cups up not with coke
but - BOOZE.

Booze. Some people's posts suggest that they are always on the stuff.

Another good thing about Donald Trump is that he is a teetotaller. So is Joe, but something else interfered with his marbles. Trump is teetotal, plus all of his marbles.

It's just as well that Trump doesn't drink 'cause he loves
his guns and his burgers, chips, and fast foods. Adding booze
to that mix could prove fatal.

Anyhoo, as we can see - the ardent Trump supporters here
will blame anything else for Trump's criticism. Someone else
will always be responsible - the media, the moderators,
and so on.

This is motivated not by a belief in upholding democratic
norms. This is purely an effort to rule out any criticism
of Trump's authoritarianism as dangerous and out of bounds.

This is purely a cynical attempt to "foam the runaway for
the election of a dangerous man" as my earlier link argues.

It will probably work for Trump supporters.
It will comfort them thinking Trump's not to blame.

mhaze,

Biden wasn’t removed in a coup; he’s still president. He was encouraged to bow out of the 2024 race because his age and mental decline were seriously affecting his chances for re-election.

//The people voted for Biden to be their representative and the people were ignored and pushed aside.//

No, the public doesn't vote for the representatives, if that’s what you mean. And, again, he’s still president.

Anyway, I thought you bought into the conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was “sToLeN!” Now suddenly Biden was democratically elected because that suits your narrative.

Again, see what happens when you’re dishonest? You always end up contradicting yourself eventually, because it’s impossible to keep track of all your lies.

--

As a teetotaller myself, I believe it's a virtue, but it’s no replacement for rational thinking.

If Trump’s sobriety really preserved all his marbles, they’ve been scattered in every speech, tweet, and policy debacle anyway.

There’s more to leadership than avoiding alcohol. It’s about sound judgement, accountability, and a firm grasp on reality - qualities Trump has never shown.

God, just imagine a drunk Trump!

"Okay, okay, look - listen, folks, nobody, and I mean nobody knows more about not drinking than me. I don’t drink. Never needed it, don’t want it. Some people say, 'Don, why no booze?' And I say, 'Look, I’m already winning, folks, don’t need it!' And believe me, I’m winning so big. So big. But Joe... oh, poor Joe... he doesn’t even know where he is! He’s... what’s the word? A total lightweight, folks. Total. Can’t even walk up a flight of stairs without... boom! Down goes Joe! But me? Stone-cold sober, folks. Sharp as a tack. I’ve got all the marbles, every marble! More marbles than anyone! The best marbles, believe me. You all know it. Everyone knows it. They say it, trust me."

As usual, Foxy accuses other people of doing what he/she does himself/herself.

JD,

Not sure why you repeated Trump's words, but they are pretty true, including the comments about Joe. Falling up steps, and so on.

I have sympathy for Joe. I'm the same age as Joe, and nobody should end his life like that. The real villains are a) his wife for driving him and telling him how smart he is and b) the Democrat machine for allowing him to be humiliated and laughed at. Oh, and his doctor who said that he was “fine”. He was, and probably is, fine for his age and condition, but not fine enough to be the leader of the free world. And he most likely was not when they put him in the job. You don't just go batty suddenly.

The US Teamster's Union, about as working class as you can get, have endorsed every Democrat candidate since Clinton 1996. This year they declined to support Harris although supporting Trump was too much for the leadership to swallow.

But they did an internal poll of their WORKING CLASS members and found that they support Trump over Harris by a margin of 2 to 1.

As I've explained here before, Trump is the candidate of the working class. Yet we have people here, who constantly preen themselves as supporters of the working class but, unable to see through the lies of the MSM, refuse to support the candidate of the working class ie Trump. Useful idiots abound.

Speaking of lies - Foxy did a Gish gallop of the things the MSM told her to believe about Trump, all of which were lies. To take just the first, Foxy 'informs' us that Trump is "a candidate who openly promises to end elections". Its false. Its a lie. It never happened. But Foxy et al will believe it because the people they rely on to tell them what to think told them to believe it. Pathetic.

_____________________________________________________________________

"No, the public doesn't vote for the representatives, if that’s what you mean. And, again, he’s still president."

JD apparently does know anything about the primaries.

Does anyone want to educate him? I can't be bothered. He's ineducible.

Maybe I'm just different but if President Biden told me
to: "Fight, fight, fight!" I would not attack the Capitol.
I'd wonder what the hell was wrong with him."

And BTW - there's no election conspiracy or "election
interference". 80 million Americans just wanted a
president who wasn't a dick.

And:

"A "sucker" is someone who supporter Trump in 2-16.
A "loser" is someone who still does.

Hate never made America great.

Mhaze,

I take it from your deflection and insult that you’ve realised your error, which is why you don’t want to “educate” me. Yes, I know what primaries are.

Biden’s decision to step aside came after his disastrous debate performance and concerns about his age, which were impacting his re-election chances. That’s why he voluntarily ended his candidacy, allowing Harris to secure the nomination through standard delegate processes.

If you have any actual evidence that Biden didn’t step down willingly and that this was some "palace coup," I’d love to see it. Otherwise, you’re just spinning yet another one of your baseless conspiracy theories.

Foxy, he did not say fight fight fight he said go down there and let
them hear you. Walk down there peaceably.
That last word was deleted after about 1/2 hour approx.

JD,

"Yes, I know what primaries are."

Well you know now. Isn't Google wonderful!

" That’s why he voluntarily ended his candidacy, "

JD's naivety is so cute. Biden just woke up one day and said, I'm too demented to run. Yeah that's the way it happened. Of course, the day before he said he'd drop out (in a release he didn't sign) he was telling everyone he was still running and demanding a second debate. Then he gets a visit by Pelosi and Schumer and, well blow me down, he suddenly decides, all by himself mind you, that he might drop out after all. Nothing to do with the visits from all the DNC chiefs, nosireee! Struth, the gullibility is amazing.

___________________________________________________________________

" "Fight, fight, fight!"

He said that after he'd been shot, not on J6 2021. The lack of knowledge is astounding.

I can't help but notice Foxy doesn't even try to defend her lies about Trump being ""a candidate who openly promises to end elections". Typical. It doesn't matter if its true. Foxy and facts are strangers.

mhaze,

I had no need to Google it. I knew before. Hence my reply.

//JD's naivety is so cute. Biden just woke up one day and said, I'm too demented to run. Yeah that's the way it happened.//

"Voluntarily" doesn't mean it had to have been decision made with not so much as even a hint from from anyone else.

You still haven't provided any evidence of a "palace coup," or that he was even strong-armed out of the race.

You're just speculating.

"Liberal Media Admits Teamsters’ Snub of Kamala Harris a Major 'Win for Trump'" http://tiny.cc/acsmzz

_____________________________________________________________________

But in good news for the furtherance of Diversity and Equity, Biden has announced that the next assassin will be a women of colour.... http://tiny.cc/gcsmzz

__________________________________________________________________

"You still haven't provided any evidence of a "palace coup,"".

No the evidence will come in about a decade's time when all the details are released.

OTOH you have provided ample evidence of your monumental naivety,

Still encouraging the lunatics to shoot Trump, Harris is harping about “massive detention camps” and deportations if Trump wins.

Well, yes. He said that he would be deporting people because that's what many, if not most, Americans want. Illegal aliens are a big thing: a thing that Harris was given responsibility for, but did nothing about.

Bereft of any policies herself, she is now talking about Trump's. Promoting them. Funny way to win an election.

Only one point ahead of Trump, and only 9% of voters wanting to “know more” about Trump, but 28% wanting to know more about her, she is getting desperate.

Sucking up to Latinos is unlikely to help. They are not all illegals, and they were big winners when Trump was last President, along with African Americans. Playing the race card is unlikely to do Harris much good.

Mhaze,

There’s nothing naive about accepting what the evidence currently suggests, especially when it aligns with the available facts.

You’re also assuming everyone shares the same denialist mindset as you. If your predicted evidence comes to light in a decade, I’ll simply adjust my views accordingly. That’s how rational people operate - they update their beliefs based on new evidence.

Not everyone ties their identity to political outcomes the way you seem to, as your conspiracy theories and denialism demonstrate all too well.

Here is a part of Trump's speech from January 6th
where he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol.
It was a key part of Trump's Impeachment Trial:

" And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight
like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

"So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania
Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue and we're going to the
Capitol, and we're going to try and give. The Democrats
are hopeless - they never vote for anything. Not even one
vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans the
weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our
help."

"We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and
boldness that they need to take back our country!"

So basically, the key takeaway from Trump's Presidential
election is:

"Look at how terrible America is right now.
Vote for four more years of it!"

Aren't you tired of Trump (and his supporters) running
around with mouthfuls of platitudes, and hearts full of hate.

Talk about projecting and victim-blaming: the US leftist media is off the planet!

The Leftist media is blaming Donald Trump, who “should tone down his rhetoric, ” for the two attempts on his life.

Nothing to do with their, Biden's, and Harris's non-stop rhetoric on what a danger to democracy Trump is, and how he will bring America down if he is elected.

The latest inflammatory media rhetoric includes the claim that his election would bring about “ a “visceral reaction” from segments of the Left (the Left, note) some of whom could “resort to violence”. That’s on top of the already fairly violent sniping.

Trump’s election, says the Leftist media, could also “embolden” his supporters, prone to violence (like the non-supporting snipers?), which could lead to more “terrorism” against immigrants.

Terrorism against immigrants? There has been no “terrorism” against immigrants.

The “terrorism” could also occur against “people of colour”, women, LGBTQ+ plus and “others”, according to the anti-Trump media.

The Democrat-supporting media has once again wheeled out the embittered and deeply disturbed Hilary Clinton to announce that Donald Trump is a “demigod and threat to the world”.

The most vicious, misinforming and lying rhetors are saying that Donald Trump's rhetoric, not theirs, is responsible for people wanting to kill him.

"We won the election, and we won it by a landslide.
We will stop the steal. "

"We will never give up. We will never concede. It
doesn't happen."

"If you don't fight like hell you're not going to
have a country anymore."

"We are going to the Capitol."

The language is not the language of combat or war.

Right.

He's not telling people to march to the capitol.

Right.

He certainly didn't know that there were people in the
crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent.
So how could he discourage any of that and of course
he did not hint it should happen.

Right.

It's not his fault.

Everyone else is to blame.

Right!

Foxy's last few posts are her unique way of admitting that she made it up when she said Trump said "Fight, fight, fight!" on January 6, 2021.

This is the other part of the Trump speech on that day that Foxy somehow overlooked. Just an oversight I'm sure.

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,"

_______________________________________________________________

More moronosity from Foxy...

"So basically, the key takeaway from Trump's Presidential election is:

"Look at how terrible America is right now.
Vote for four more years of it!"

Foxy, do you not realise that the last four years are Biden/Harris years? Apparently not!! No matter what Trump is offering, its the opposite of that

Would any one of us seriously describe Donald Trump
as a "conservative" or a "Republican?"

So many other adjectives come to mind.

Think plutonium. You don't know whether the plutonium
heat your home or blow up your town.

Hopefully, Americans won't take the risk.

Foxy is getting hysterical and incoherent over something that only America citizens will have a say in; and only about 50% of them will bother to vote.

In the meantime, Albozo is in America with Biden, wearing a suit with tight, very wrinkled trousers more suited to a man half his age. Were he a she, 'mutton dressed up as lamb' would be an appropriate observation.

ttbn is a hypocrite, attacks Foxy for posting something about American politics, yet himself posts countless diatribes on the same subject. I thinks he gets his perverted kicks cyber bulling Foxy.

Hi Foxy,

To answer your question, in the American political context Trump is a radical, and not a conservative. Radicalism is okay when its non violent, and directed towards progressive improvement, but with Trump its not that, its spite and hate directed towards minorities etc. When radicalism calls for the tearing down of the democratic political and social structures of a free society then its not okay in my book, Trump is doing that. Do I think Trump is a Hitler, no, just a Mini Hitler, a Clayton''s Hitler, the Hitler you have when you don't have a Hitler.

p/s Of course with his base philosophy of hate and bigotry Trump would appeal to our little band of Knuckle Dragers on this forum.

Paul 1405, unaware of what a “hypocrite” is, blunders in to defend the only poster silly enough to agree with his rubbish. He doesn't understand “hysterical” either, which has nothing to do with “countless” (he can't count either apparently), posts , but the tone of the posts, the quality and intelligence of the posts - as opposed to the mania, the screeching, demanding the last say, referring to reams of dodgy information, obviously thinking that you are right all the time, and being unable to stop raving when you are clearly not convincing anyone with emotional nonsense. Add to that, the fact that Foxy seems deluded that the manic posts and highly emotional opinions will have some effect on anyone or anything, and the need to keep defending mere opinions until other posters tire of the lectures.

I am not “bullying” anyone. We haven't been shut down by Albanese yet. I have the same rights as everyone else to say what I think. I have the same rights as everyone else to criticise other posters as they have the rights to criticise me. As Foxy is always saying, nobody is obliged to take any notice.

I'd like to add another post to the "countless" ones. I hope Paul doesn't mind. No. Actually I hope he does mind.

Donald Trump has come out and told the truth that Communist China is a “ real threat”. That's something his opponents and haters don't have the guts to say. The rest of the bed wetters don't want to give the general public the incentive to face reality, and realise what a conflict with China would be like if the Communist threat is not dealt with properly.

Think about what day to day life in Australia would be like if a war in the Indo Pacific broke out. What would happen to international freight and essential imports to Australia - fuel, medicines, and anything else we don't make.

Australia does not comply with its international agreement to have a minimum of 90 days fuel.

No fuel, no delivery of goods within Australia, on top of no imports. No travel. And, what about emergency services, military and police?

90% of our pharmaceuticals are imported. Many of them come from China.

Technology and digital services. Imported. All gone. Unless the Albanese government stops faffing about and acts in a way that will get Australian manufacturing moving again.

Dear Paul,

In 2016 the German newspaper, the "Hamburger Morgenpost"
begged Americans not to elect the "horror clown."

And now he's back.

Life is full of choices and a learning experience.
We grow by realizing our mistakes and many of us make
adjustments so we don't make the same mistakes again.

I believe we make good choices when we weigh up the
consequences and the possibilities and stay true to
our morals and values.

I am concerned that Trump simply cannot be trusted
to protect Europe from its major security threat -
Vladimir Putin or that he'll help us against China
if the need arose.

"We're defined by the choices we make."

Our lives are made up of an infinite amount of choices.
It's the bid decisions that can have the biggest impacts
and are tough to make.

As for personal attacks on this forum?

We should not be honouring irrelevant people by giving
them attention. Certainly not ones who are the most
effluent posters on this forum.

Enjoy your day.

Trump is a radical. He's leading a fightback by the working class against the policies of the political elite who have oppressed and impoverished the working classes over the 30 years.

He is working for the benefit of the lower classes in fly-over USA who have been downtrodden by globalism and the elites global warfare. People whose kids were forced to fight and die to allow the elite to continue their internationalist ambitions are now Trump's base since they see him as their last best chance to salvage their nation and their place in it.

The most interesting thing about this election is that its all about Trump's policies and vision. The Democrats have no policies that they'd care to offer to the people because they know their policies would be rejected by the people. Kamala doesn't offer her vision - she has no vision. Her only policy is that she's not Trump.

Its clear that those who oppose Trump do it because of his support for the working class. While they preen themselves as supporters for the downtrodden, they are instead supporters of the elites and globalist policies. When asked which actual Trump policy they oppose, crickets are the response. When asked what actual Democrat policies they think decisive, silence is the reply.

This is the most important election since 1980 when the USA was pulled back from the brink by an insightful leader. If Trump loses (and I think he's not yet far enough ahead to defeat the cheating by the DNC) the US and US democracy is finished.

(Although I still think the level of DNC cheating will overwhelm the advantage Trump has in the voting, he is getting closer to the point where he'll win by too much for the rigging to succeed. The next 6 weeks will determine the way the world is for our kids and grandkids.)

Talking about Trump's saying he would "protect"
and "fight for" workers.

His administration has systematically done the opposite.

There's more at the following from the Economic Policy
Institute:

http://epi.org/publication/50-reasons/

"His administration has systematically done the opposite."

Says a highly biased left leaning institute.

And yet the working classes remain his primary supporters.

Stupid working class have no idea what's good for them. Luckily they've got the globalist elite and left leaning institutes to tell them what's in their best interest </sarc >

Idiotic teamsters support Trump 2 to 1. Fools. No wonder they need to be told what to think.

It has always been obvious that certain posters have the memories of goldfish, and the poor things have obviously forgotten that Donald Trump was President for four years, and he didn't do all the horrible things they claim he would do this time. Harris would mean another four years of the cowardice and incompetence still there in front of our eyes. The West’s enemies behaved themselves when Trump was President.

The Whitehouse needs a Republican in it: preferably a Ronald Reagan clone. But, Trump is what is available this time. Perhaps Senator Vance next time. The Left is already tearing into him.

The US is like Australia in that if the Left is given a go at government, they wreck the joint, and it takes the right a decade to prepare the damage. The same is occurring in the UK, where the mugs kicked out the Tories for going too far to the left, and installed a mob that is even further to the Left; as happened here, thanks to two leaders in quick succession who were better suited to Labor than dragging the Liberals to left from within inside.

The Vance-Walz debate didn't get much attention outside the US: and inside the US it was deemed as not likely to have much effect on the election. The same might be said of the Trump-Harris vote, if the following information is anything to go on.

In the 2020 election, it has now been revealed that 76% of digital election machinery was vulnerable to attack by “adversaries”. Voter fraud is a real thing in America, despite the scoffing of naive Australian Trump-haters.

Currently, “eligibility” to vote works on the ‘(dis)honour system. You just have to say that you are a citizen.

The Democrats are working flat out to turn illegal arrivals into voters - the reason why the southern border remains wide open.

An Act to ‘Safeguard American Voter Eligibility’ won't be up in time for this election, if it ever gets up with the Democrats in charge.

Welfare agencies in all states but North Dakota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Wyoming are handing out registration to vote forms to “immigrants” without requiring proof of citizenship.

Unless laws are tightened up, it is predicted that 3 million illegals will vote at the 2024 election - most for the Democrats who let them enter the country illegally.

There is a suggestion that 2024 might be the last real election for the USA, if Trump fails; and that once mighty country will lead the West into totalitarianism. That does sound a little over the top: but then, there's a hell a lot that has happened that most of us never thought could occur in what we thought were democracies.

Lawyer and US Senator Ted Cruz says that if the Democrats get in and are able to overturn the Constitution as they wish to do over the next four years, Americans will be only 1 Senate seat away from “calamity”.

Donald Trump is the only one who can save the West.

If Harris wins, she will continue the long-term project started under Barrack Obama to appease the ‘Beijing-Moscow-Tehran Axis’.

The plan is to change the long-standing rule that 60% is needed to pass legislation: 60 out of the 100 Senators must agree.

If the Democrats win the Senate, they will appeal against the requirement, and it takes only 51% to win the appeal; and with their majority, the Democrats will have overturned the long-standing agreement, opening the floodgates for all major legislation to be by a simple majority of 51.

There would be 4 Democrat Bills involved which will, according to Cruz, turn America into “a socialist state like Venezuela”.

. A federal takeover of all elections (mainly governed by the states now), enabling vote harvesting, felons and illegals to vote. The Democrats would never lose an election with the increase in fraud.

. Introduction of 2 new states: Washington DC and Puerto Rico. No more Republicans in the Senate.

. An amnesty and immediate voting rights to every illegal alien in America.

. Increase in Supreme Court Judges from 9 to 13.

The more crazy and far right a politician becomes the more ttbn thinks they are the ideal candidate to run the country, in Australia its the racists from One Nation, Prime Minister Pauline and a cabinet chock full of the religious crazies from Family First, what a coalition of nut jobs that would be. His latest folk hero is the criminal Donald Trump, the more Trump lies, the more the old bloke laps it up.

Donald Trump often claims to have a higher IQ than many other people. In 2013, Trump tweeted that his IQ was "much higher" than Barack Obama and George W Bush. Recent research into Trump's cognitive responses to some very ordinary questions asked by reporters, indicates his IQ is likely to be below the average mark of 100, most likely around 90 to 95, which would make Trump incompetent to drive a motor vehicle, let alone run the most powerful country in the world. Trump has about the same IQ as Idi Amin of Uganda, seems they have something in common.