Trump talk only- no Eagles talk allowed (Steelers talk is OK though)

[thegeneral 3,214]

Trump wanted more than two debates with Biden. Now he only wants one?

[Mike Honcho 5,281]

2 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Where do you live? I'm a lifelong Californian. I know her, you don't. 

Wow, you must get up really early to post in the wordle thread. 

[jerryskids 6,799]

17 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Because I know what you guys are really calling her 

We're calling her Biden's favorite black woman for the VP job.  Which is incontrovertible.

Feel free to spin that into our side being racist and misogynistic.  It's what you guys do, when confronted with your own behavior. 

[MDC 7,427]

Trump should show up to the 9/10 debate he agreed to and call Kamala a DEI hire. Then he can explain how that weirdo Vance was the most qualified candidate based on 18 months in office and writing a hillbilly book.

[5-Points 3,530]

11 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Wow, you must get up really early to post in the wordle thread. 

3 AM Monday thru Thursday.

 

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

56 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Trump loves to perform in front of a crowd. He agreed to debate Biden in a dark, empty auditorium because bright lights and large crowds are a distraction for someone with Joe's cognitive disabilities and would be detrimental to his ability to debate. 

Trump knew how bad off Biden was so he made concessions that he knew wouldn't cost him anything. He knew he'd win the debate regardless. 

If Harris needs those same concessions, most importantly having the questions in advance, it proves she's the one who is afraid of a straight up debate.

And so are all of you. Hence the  about Trump renegotiating the terms.  

 

Then why not just request ABC give a live audience? I think they would have quickly agreed. Why demand  different network and a different date? And why insist that it’s this or nothing? If you know anything about negotiations you know that when you demand “it’s this or nothing” you’re almost guaranteeing that the other side will refuse. Which I suspect is Trump’s motive. He wants to get out of this. 

[5-Points 3,530]

13 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Then why not just request ABC give a live audience? I think they would have quickly agreed. Why demand  different network and a different date? And why insist that it’s this or nothing? If you know anything about negotiations you know that when you demand “it’s this or nothing” you’re almost guaranteeing that the other side will refuse. Which I suspect is Trump’s motive. He wants to get out of this. 

First, I don't think Trump trusts, with good reason, ABC to not give the Harris camp the questions in advance. 

And, as negotiating is part of my job, you always insist on more than what you need in the opening salvo then allow the other party to "negotiate" you down to an agreeable position. Which, if you're any good at negotiating, is right about where you wanted to be in the first place. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

4 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

First, I don't think Trump trusts, with good reason, ABC to not give the Harris camp the questions in advance. 

And, as negotiating is part of my job, you always insist on more than what you need in the opening salvo then allow the other party to "negotiate" you down to an agreeable position. Which, if you're any good at negotiating, is right about where you wanted to be in the first place. 

Why can't you just assume someone else's negotiated contract?  That's legal, isn't it?  So what if the terms and conditions have changed.

Asking for a friend.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

2 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

First, I don't think Trump trusts, with good reason, ABC to not give the Harris camp the questions in advance. 

And, as negotiating is part of my job, you always insist on more than what you need in the opening salvo then allow the other party to "negotiate" you down to an agreeable position. Which, if you're any good at negotiating, is right about where you wanted to be in the first place. 

Uh huh, and as a fake lawyer, once you’ve agreed to something, you can’t unilaterally back out, nor would any later changes be valid without additional consideration  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

Uh huh, and as a fake lawyer, once you’ve agreed to something, you can’t unilaterally back out, nor would any later changes be valid without additional consideration  

You sure can if the terms and conditions have changed.  You're right, you are a fake lawyer. 

[BrahmaBulls 763]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

Trump wanted more than two debates with Biden. Now he only wants one?

Link?

[IGotWorms 4,058]

2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

You sure can if the terms and conditions have changed.  You're right, you are a fake lawyer. 

Well that would depend if it was specifically to debate Biden or to debate the Democratic candidate. Not that anyone can or will sue to enforce the contract anyway. The real issue is “is Trump a b1tch?” and there’s certainly some questions there 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

Well that would depend if it was specifically to debate Biden or to debate the Democratic candidate. Not that anyone can or will sue to enforce the contract anyway. The real issue is “is Trump a b1tch?” and there’s certainly some questions there 

Actually, the issue is that Kamala is a coward.  What she so scared of? She afraid Fox won't give her the questions ahead of time like ABC would?  Maybe she can find a FOX executive and "negotiate" some conditions that are favorable, no?

Seems like the only b#tch here is her. 

[Reality 3,121]

3 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

You sure can if the terms and conditions have changed.  You're right, you are a fake lawyer. 

Obviously, such an absurd argument. Liberals are idiots.

9 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

First, I don't think Trump trusts, with good reason, ABC to not give the Harris camp the questions in advance. 

And, as negotiating is part of my job, you always insist on more than what you need in the opening salvo then allow the other party to "negotiate" you down to an agreeable position. Which, if you're any good at negotiating, is right about where you wanted to be in the first place. 

He shouldn't trust ABC at all, George Stephanopoulos is a known Democrat operative. Harris will absolutely get the questions, Trump shouldn't debate on ABC, period.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

2 minutes ago, Reality said:

Obviously, such an absurd argument. Liberals are idiots.

He shouldn't trust ABC at all, George Stephanopoulos is a known Democrat operative. Harris will absolutely get the questions, Trump shouldn't debate on ABC, period.

And Fox News is full of known GOP operatives. It’s basically Pravda for pro-Putin republicans  

[thegeneral 3,214]

5 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

Link?

STICKING POINTS

Trump’s campaign is also pushing for more debates. In a memorandum Wednesday, senior campaign advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles sent a memo to Biden campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon saying, “we believe there should be more than just two opportunities for the American people to hear more from the candidates themselves.” They proposed holding one debate per month, with events in June, July, August and September, in addition to a vice presidential debate.

Link

[5-Points 3,530]

11 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Why can't you just assume someone else's negotiated contract?  That's legal, isn't it?  So what if the terms and conditions have changed.

Asking for a friend.

Good point. Mebbe I can convince the bank that someone else is responsible for my mortgage. 

[Mark Davis 398]

5 minutes ago, Reality said:

Obviously, such an absurd argument. Liberals are idiots.

He shouldn't trust ABC at all, George Stephanopoulos is a known Democrat operative. Harris will absolutely get the questions, Trump shouldn't debate on ABC, period.

The whole interchange between Stephanopoulos and Byron Donalds was hilarious this morning.  That line of questioning is the whole issue right now the Trump campaign faces.  Harris is essentially in the basement like Biden was.  She still hasn't even faced an interview, much less any challenging questions.  She's right now just a mirage because we don't really know what she would do under tough questioning.  But the media wants to frame the narrative around the race question and those type ridiculous things versus the actual policies.  It dominated that Donalds interview. 

When it comes to Kamala, who knows where she stands?  I've heard now she's pro fracking when before she was against it.  I know she was for Medicare for All, now supposedly she isn't.  But it's really hard to know.  But if they  can get away with it, she may well win, so I can't blame them for keeping her hidden.  None of us, even those in her own party, really know where she stands.  She just isn't Trump.

[5-Points 3,530]

13 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Uh huh, and as a fake lawyer, once you’ve agreed to something, you can’t unilaterally back out, nor would any later changes be valid without additional consideration  

When, in the history of politics, has a presidential candidate agreed to debate a vice presidential candidate? 

Answer: never 

The fact that Obama told Joe he's out doesn't afford Harris any considerations. 

She's at square one. It's on her to negotiate any terms for debate. 

[BrahmaBulls 763]

6 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

STICKING POINTS

Trump’s campaign is also pushing for more debates. In a memorandum Wednesday, senior campaign advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles sent a memo to Biden campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon saying, “we believe there should be more than just two opportunities for the American people to hear more from the candidates themselves.” They proposed holding one debate per month, with events in June, July, August and September, in addition to a vice presidential debate.

Link

No schtick how many times do we have to hear both of them lie and scream insults at each other?

[5-Points 3,530]

9 minutes ago, Reality said:

Obviously, such an absurd argument. Liberals are idiots.

He shouldn't trust ABC at all, George Stephanopoulos is a known Democrat operative. Harris will absolutely get the questions, Trump shouldn't debate on ABC, period.

He went into the lion's den once. Now people seem to think he's stoopid enough to do it again. 

[thegeneral 3,214]

3 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

No schtick how many times do we have to hear both of them lie and scream insults at each other?

I think the debates are useful. Also entertaining theater. It does seem like Donald is a bit worried about doing these. He wasn’t with Biden. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

Just now, thegeneral said:

I think the debates are useful. Also entertaining theater. It does seem like Donald is a bit worried about doing these. He wasn’t with Biden. 

Look like Kamala is the one with the issue, not Trump.  

[BrahmaBulls 763]

3 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

I think the debates are useful. Also entertaining theater. It does seem like Donald is a bit worried about doing these. He wasn’t with Biden. 

Hint.  Neither will tell the truth and just spout off stupid talking points.  Everyone on the right will say Trump won.  Everyone on the left will say Kamala won.  Tim will say Kamala had the best debate in the history of the world. 

I agree on the entertainment value though.

[thegeneral 3,214]

3 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Look like Kamala is the one with the issue, not Trump.  

I don’t know about this. Donald wanted to debate Biden anytime, anywhere, many times. Since he dropped he’s been wishy washy and now wants just the one on Fixed News.

Not the strongest look.

[5-Points 3,530]

3 hours ago, squistion said:

While you have resided in Bakersfield? That would explain things too.

By the way, what's wrong with Bakersfield? Your boyfriend Newsom felt it was the best place to start that bullet train to Merced you fell for. 

Have you ever been right about anything? 

[thegeneral 3,214]

Just now, BrahmaBulls said:

Hint.  Neither will tell the truth and just spout off stupid talking points.  Everyone on the right will say Trump won.  Everyone on the left will say Kamala won.  Tim will say Kamala had the best debate in the history of the world. 

I agree on the entertainment value though.

You never know until you see them. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

37 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

The whole interchange between Stephanopoulos and Byron Donalds was hilarious this morning.  That line of questioning is the whole issue right now the Trump campaign faces.  Harris is essentially in the basement like Biden was.  She still hasn't even faced an interview, much less any challenging questions.  She's right now just a mirage because we don't really know what she would do under tough questioning.  But the media wants to frame the narrative around the race question and those type ridiculous things versus the actual policies.  It dominated that Donalds interview. 

When it comes to Kamala, who knows where she stands?  I've heard now she's pro fracking when before she was against it.  I know she was for Medicare for All, now supposedly she isn't.  But it's really hard to know.  But if they  can get away with it, she may well win, so I can't blame them for keeping her hidden.  None of us, even those in her own party, really know where she stands.  She just isn't Trump.

I agree with this, actually. We don’t know where she stands on some things where she’s taken some, frankly, inadvisable stances in the past. They’re going to have to get her ready for that because it’s definitely coming up in any debate(s) if not sooner. May help to clarify some of this at the convention as well, at least implicitly, or through interviews. She will have to get out there eventually 

[seafoam1 3,025]

42 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

The whole interchange between Stephanopoulos and Byron Donalds was hilarious this morning.  That line of questioning is the whole issue right now the Trump campaign faces.  Harris is essentially in the basement like Biden was.  She still hasn't even faced an interview, much less any challenging questions.  She's right now just a mirage because we don't really know what she would do under tough questioning.  But the media wants to frame the narrative around the race question and those type ridiculous things versus the actual policies.  It dominated that Donalds interview. 

When it comes to Kamala, who knows where she stands?  I've heard now she's pro fracking when before she was against it.  I know she was for Medicare for All, now supposedly she isn't.  But it's really hard to know.  But if they  can get away with it, she may well win, so I can't blame them for keeping her hidden.  None of us, even those in her own party, really know where she stands.  She just isn't Trump.

It just proves that liberals vote for the 'D' over our nation's well being and security. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

48 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

The whole interchange between Stephanopoulos and Byron Donalds was hilarious this morning.  That line of questioning is the whole issue right now the Trump campaign faces.  Harris is essentially in the basement like Biden was.  She still hasn't even faced an interview, much less any challenging questions.  She's right now just a mirage because we don't really know what she would do under tough questioning.  But the media wants to frame the narrative around the race question and those type ridiculous things versus the actual policies.  It dominated that Donalds interview. 

When it comes to Kamala, who knows where she stands?  I've heard now she's pro fracking when before she was against it.  I know she was for Medicare for All, now supposedly she isn't.  But it's really hard to know.  But if they  can get away with it, she may well win, so I can't blame them for keeping her hidden.  None of us, even those in her own party, really know where she stands.  She just isn't Trump.

Also I watched that interview because I was curious. I give Donalds credit for going on to hostile questioning and he is well spoken. However he gave some real bullsh1t answers about Donald Trump’s questioning of Harris’ blackness and basically repeated those slurs while denying he was doing it and downplaying Trump having done it. He also gave a bullsh1t answer on Trump saying he’d pardon January 6 “patriots” claiming Trump didn’t say that (he has).

So I’m not really sure what any of that has to do with the rest of your post about Harris, but I do agree with what you said there nonetheless.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

50 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

He went into the lion's den once. Now people seem to think he's stoopid enough to do it again. 

People think he’s “stoopid enough” to do an ABC debate on September 10 because he already said he would

[5-Points 3,530]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

People think he’s “stoopid enough” to do an ABC debate on September 10 because he already said he would

Do you not see any problem with the DNC switching candidates at the last minute that might result in  the legitimate republican candidate taking issue with it? 

Really? 

Defend that position. 

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

First, I don't think Trump trusts, with good reason, ABC to not give the Harris camp the questions in advance. 

And, as negotiating is part of my job, you always insist on more than what you need in the opening salvo then allow the other party to "negotiate" you down to an agreeable position. Which, if you're any good at negotiating, is right about where you wanted to be in the first place. 

First off, this whole thing about giving the questions in advance is kinda dumb because the questions are pretty easy to predict already by anyone paying attention. I can tell you right now most of the questions and I bet you can too. There’s not going to be any surprises. 

Second- of course you ask for as much as you can. But what you don’t do is start the negotiation by saying “this is my final offer take it or no deal at all.” That is a sure way to kill the negotiation, especially in a situation like this in which both sides want to avoid looking weak. 

[seafoam1 3,025]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

First off, this whole thing about giving the questions in advance is kinda dumb because the questions are pretty easy to predict already by anyone paying attention. I can tell you right now most of the questions and I bet you can too. There’s not going to be any surprises. 

Second- of course you ask for as much as you can. But what you don’t do is start the negotiation by saying “this is my final offer take it or no deal at all.” That is a sure way to kill the negotiation, especially in a situation like this in which both sides want to avoid looking weak. 

You look weak a lot, if not always.

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

Many Democrats who were opposed to fracking are no longer opposed because of the undeniable economic benefits- though they still want more regulations. 
 

Many Democrats who were for Medicare for All are no longer for it because Obamacare has turned out to be more effective than they originally thought it would be- though they still want Obamacare approved on. 
 

These changes in position are true of a whole lot of Democrats. But practically speaking none of this matters because the Dems will not have the power, even with Kamala in the White House, to change the status quo on either issue. 

[Beaker15 241]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Many Democrats who were opposed to fracking are no longer opposed because of the undeniable economic benefits- though they still want more regulations. 
 

Many Democrats who were for Medicare for All are no longer for it because Obamacare has turned out to be more effective than they originally thought it would be- though they still want Obamacare approved on. 
 

These changes in position are true of a whole lot of Democrats. But practically speaking none of this matters because the Dems will not have the power, even with Kamala in the White House, to change the status quo on either issue. 

Don't kid yourself Kamala isn't sniffing the White House

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

Big tough prosecutor has to have everything her way. Nah.  She’s not legit anyway.  

[5-Points 3,530]

31 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

First off, this whole thing about giving the questions in advance is kinda dumb because the questions are pretty easy to predict already by anyone paying attention. I can tell you right now most of the questions and I bet you can too. There’s not going to be any surprises. 

Second- of course you ask for as much as you can. But what you don’t do is start the negotiation by saying “this is my final offer take it or no deal at all.” That is a sure way to kill the negotiation, especially in a situation like this in which both sides want to avoid looking weak. 

You can appreciate the difference between anticipating the "obvious" questions vs having the specific questions in advance, right? 

 

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

29 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

You can appreciate the difference between anticipating the "obvious" questions vs having the specific questions in advance, right? 

 

Yes. But I’m not a conspiracist and I trust the integrity of ABC. 

[jerryskids 6,799]

2 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

I agree with this, actually. We don’t know where she stands on some things where she’s taken some, frankly, inadvisable stances in the past. They’re going to have to get her ready for that because it’s definitely coming up in any debate(s) if not sooner. May help to clarify some of this at the convention as well, at least implicitly, or through interviews. She will have to get out there eventually 

I appreciate this response, thanks.  Why do you think she took "inadvisable stances in the past"?  Your implication is that she would not have otherwise taken those stances.  Yet, she had the most progressive record in the Senate.

I'm not trying to be a d1ck, I'm honestly asking why you think those weren't her personal positions.