Sean Mooney

You've seen the affidavit? The one that the person from ABC gave to a X user with 105,000 followers?

Maybe the 4th time will take? You don't sound saved. You sound troubled.

From the New York Times via the organizations listed (I also overshot the number by a thousand...my mistake): Now I guess technically vote.gov takes you to your state registering page so perhaps not everyone who clicked the link actually signed up to vote fully. I would assume in a week or two we might know the actual number of new voters from this event.

Sounds like you need to go back and be reborn a third time...maybe the third time's the charm for you?

So we know the questions were handed to her ahead of time but we can't prove it because evidence doesn't exist because the left controls the evidence? So silly

Today's Bible verse: "I just whipped your ass"- Austin 3:16

Is there actual proof of her getting the questions in advance?

More like you just can't read. Also, step aside and let the adults discuss things there rent a cop.

So a user on X at the handle @docnetyoutube puts out a Tweet saying he has an affidavit from an ABC whistleblower saying the debate was rigged and Kamala was given the answers ahead of time. Also, ABC promised Kamala they would only fact check Trump and not her. So someone from ABC with a massive news story like this- went to a user on X with 105,000 followers to break this massive story wide open? Then a few other accounts of people deeply associated with MAGA (@MILALOVESJOE- 68,000 followers, @chuck callesto- 821,000 followers, and @realbengeller- 24,000 followers) amplify the story by posting it- none of them supplying evidence BTW- and then MAGA world picks this up and decides this is the smoking gun that proves the point that they were already trying to make BEFORE the debate ended on Tuesday night. Do you all really not see how you are being manipulated by fake social media stories? 1.) Trump lost the debate. It was easily his worst performance in a debate in the 9 years he has been part of the election cycles. He has been considerably better before eating up the GOP candidates in 2016 and holding serve against Hillary in that year as well. 2.) It may not matter that he lost the debate because he still has lots of supporters and the flux of the perception of the economy doesn't exactly help Kamala. 3.) There is no vendetta against Trump by the media. This is the media that knows Trump stories sell to the public. If anything I would wager there are a lot of people in the "biased left MSM" that secretly want Trump to win because it means they get 4 more years of stories out of him. 4.) The real issue here is- with as unpopular a presidency as Biden/Harris have this should be a cakewalk for the GOP candidate. Instead the GOP again put forth a very unlikable candidate which is taking what should be a rout and turning it into a close game late in the 4th.

The people who skyscream about "the biased media" literally post stuff from FOX News to support their point not realizing (or just plain outright stupidly not seeing) that they are just as manipulated as anyone else by biased media

Well Jerry, it seems like a lot of people here seem to care about who Tay Tay endorses. They didn't seem to have a problem with who Hulk Hogan or Kid Rock endorsed. Perhaps you could point me to some of those posts of outrage from you or some of the other people skyscreaming in here. And I know you'll say "Where are the posts of people mocking who Kid Rock wants to vote for but not Tay Tay." To that- I'll say- who cares who Kid Rock is voting for similar to who cares who Taylor Swift is voting for.? It is good that 407,000 people (so far) signed up to vote because of Taylor Swift. I think we should aim for 100% of people eligible to vote to be registered for voting but that will never happen. Do we not want people registered to vote now? With respect to the 407K number it is a story of some level that arguably the biggest singer in the world encouraged people to register to vote and was successful to a degree. Should people do their own research? Of course. I assume there will be idiots who vote for Kamala Harris just because Taylor Swift will. I'm sure there are idiots who will vote for Donald Trump just because Hulk Hogan and Kid Rock will. They are all idiots. But arguably not as big an idiot as the people who are very deeply triggered here in this thread by Taylor supporting Kamala Harris.

My centrist take is- why does anyone care who Taylor Swift endorses for President? On top of that- I think the amount of people triggered by her in this thread are just making themselves look ridiculous. And Taylor Swift is one of the most carefully orchestrated singers of all time. I'm sure she timed this in a certain way- Whether the Harris/Walz campaign had anything to do with it or not- it would've been constructed carefully to announce her support for a candidate

A bunch of Internet tough guys triggered by a rat looking shitty pop singer from central PA?

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4876282-springfield-ohio-cats-bomb-threat/ See- this is the kind of stuff that happens when a lunatic goes on TV spouting fake stories to the nation.

Says a guy who never leaves his basement

Well the MAGAites are getting to the say the quiet part out loud part of the game now.

Jesus has his own AI too. So maybe they will replace Jesus. https://www.thejesusai.com/

To Hawkeye's point- there are polls that show Trump winning the debate. Any poll after the fact is going to depend on who is conducting the poll. If Breitbart conducted a poll on who won it would be far more skewed towards Trump. If Mother Jones conducted a poll I'd expect it to be far more skewed towards Kamala Harris. CNN has it at 63% to Harris. CSPAN- through an X poll- has it at 75% to Trump. FOX News had a 17 person focus group of Dems, Republicans, and Independents and had it 12 to 5 in favor of Harris.

I added this note in the one thread yesterday: "So 3/4ths of registered voters are going to watch and well over a quarter of registered voters thing the debate will make a difference. Those numbers seem big. " That seems like a big number overall. But yes I would assume a large number of people were not swayed one way or the other

I'm better than him so I'm not going to stoop to his level. But anyone who is here and on like name 5 or 6 should probably re-evaluate their life.

Maximum Overkill is a troll bot. utilt99 is just a babbling idiot.

Congrats...this is one of the funniest things ever written on the forum.

Also, the whole thing about "the moderators were unfair." Look Trump lied a bunch of times in the debate. They let a bunch of little ones fly by without saying a word. The big ones he got called on. I get the whole idea of being against abortion...."but when you say people are for abortion after birth".....no one is for that. It's infanticide at that point. Again- there is a clear point to make but by going full crazy you undercut yourself so much. The people's dogs and cats are being eaten is mostly a hoax and the commissioner and mayor there have refuted it. But he repeated it again. The issue is immigration and people do care about it. Stick to that. But when you say "In Springfield, they're eating the dogs." you look insane. I get people want Trump (or Harris) to be able to say things without being called on it but stick to the issue and don't go full crazy. Also, the moderators asked some pretty pointed questions at Harris "I know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of your policy positions changed? I also thought the debate moderators did about as good a job as you could hitting all the main topics and giving them ample time.

He even started a whole "MAH PRESIDENT WAS JOBBED!!!" thread already. Dude is gone.

Yeah he can't refute anything. It's just insults...it's sad in some ways