The oficially **official** Trump vs. Biden "debate" thread



If the RNC can't take minute-long snippets of this and run them until November, they're just incompetent. Don't bother with anything else; just run this. Just take whatever money you can syphon away from Trump's legal defense and run this. End game! Forget everything else. Don't spend money in the solidly red or solidly blue states - just take whatever money you have and run this in Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia ... and maybe run it a few times in Wisconsin and New Hampshire ... and if you're felling desperate then run it in Virginia, New Mexico and Maine as well.
 
Last edited:
IMG_0435.jpeg


IMG_0448.jpeg
 
Anti Federalist said:
5 - No open hostility to the Second Amendment, in fact, very positive support, in spite of bump stocks and red flags and past comments.
Click to expand...
Banning bump stocks and pushing red flag gun confiscation laws IS open hostility to the Second Amendment.

Also he raised taxes.

Yeah Trump was a mixed bag, he did some good things as you described. But he isn't conservative, pro-liberty, or pro-Constitution.
 
Matt Collins said:
Banning bump stocks and pushing red flag gun confiscation laws IS open hostility to the Second Amendment.

Also he raised taxes.

Yeah Trump was a mixed bag, he did some good things as you described. But he isn't conservative, pro-liberty, or pro-Constitution.
Click to expand...

Forgetting the regrettable fact that we're on the brink of tyranny (so we don't have to suffer the inconvenience of manning up and fixing the problem properly) requires one to wear blinders.

Republicans don't care if anything ever gets fixed. They just want to "send a message". They can endure any amount of tyranny so long as they get to vent their spleens.

Neither of these clowns is coming to save us. Pick your pacifier and start sucking.

Anti Globalist said:
GRUmnS-aUAA2ejM
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Matt Collins said:
Banning bump stocks and pushing red flag gun confiscation laws IS open hostility to the Second Amendment.

Also he raised taxes.

Yeah Trump was a mixed bag, he did some good things as you described. But he isn't conservative, pro-liberty, or pro-Constitution.
Click to expand...

Never once said he was.
 
CaptUSA said:
Well, here's the thing that makes me think it's likely... The Obama's are running the show now. All the key positions are held by Obama acolytes. They would have no problem shifting to Michelle and still supporting the same policies. But they wouldn't want her to have to debate - just get up there and give choreographed speeches. And she couldn't win a primary where she'd have to back up her qualifications.

So what better way than to have Barack out there making Biden look foolish, then an early debate, then a late convention? Just enough to keep any other potentials away from the spotlight until they can work the super-delegates. Biden drops out and throws his support to Michelle. Newsome gets the second most delegates so she makes him VP. Obama/Newsome 2024.

Of course I could be wrong, too. But I don't think this scenario is too far-fetched to keep Trump out of the Oval.
Click to expand...


I'm not interested in any Trumpscuses:

- Real estate magnate Donald Trump gave at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation while his daughter Ivanka Trump donated between $5,001 and $10,000, the Hill reported. Trump also donated to Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate campaign - http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/abc-news-star-gave-50000-to-clinton-foundation/#RVUuLIlJIQrKuGvt.99

- Trump has given $541,650 to federal Democratic candidates and fundraising committees going back to 1990, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. He's handed out money to Democratic statewide candidates as well. In 2009, for instance, Trump cut a $25,000 check to former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe for his unsuccessful 2009 Virginia gubernatorial bid. But as Republicans and Tea Party activists nationwide were working to take back the House and Senate in 2010, Trump was also handing out checks to top Democratic incumbents: $4,800 to Reid, $2,000 to Florida Sen. Bill Nelson and more than $8,000 total to New York's two senators, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Over the last two decades, Trump gave money to a number of high-profile Democrats and liberal icons, including Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle and Joe Biden. The biggest recipient of Trump's largesse? The scandal-plagued Rangel, who has taken $24,750 from Trump since the 1990 election cycle. - https://dailycaller.com/2015/06/03/...-election-which-put-reid-and-pelosi-in-power/
Click to expand...

Trump got more free publicity than any person in history, and as bad as Biden appeared and they let him on the stage, TPTB, including Meriam Adelson [who just contributed $90,000,000 to Trump's campaign] are ensuring a Trump "win".

Of course that will make many "R" folks happy, but that is how we slide further into tyranny.
 
Last edited:
PAF said:
Yes. With Trump.
Click to expand...

That is the likely outcome if they don't replace Biden.

I still say it's possible both parties replace their candidates. Because if one does the other has a sure win.
 
69360 said:
That is the likely outcome if they don't replace Biden.

I still say it's possible both parties replace their candidates. Because if one does the other has a sure win.
Click to expand...


That will never happen.


PAF said:
Trump got more free publicity than any person in history, and as bad as Biden appeared and they let him on the stage, TPTB, including Meriam Adelson [who just contributed $90,000,000 to Trump's campaign] are ensuring a Trump "win".

Of course that will make many "R" folks happy, but that is how we slide further into tyranny.
Click to expand...
 
PAF said:
That will never happen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a month ago people were saying Biden could never be replaced. Now the majority say he should be.

I've been saying for a while that both Trump and Biden may not be the candidates. If one goes both will have to.
 
Anti Federalist said:
LOL.

1 - Judicial appointments, including to SCOTUS.

2 - A track record of willingness to push back on the regulation state.

3 - End war in Ukraine.

4 - Support for, or at least no open hostility to homeschooling, would hope for veto or resistance to new federal efforts to highly restrict homeschooling.

5 - No open hostility to the Second Amendment, in fact, very positive support, in spite of bump stocks and red flags and past comments.

ETA

6 - Pushback on the transqueeer insanity.

Those reasons are enough to throw a vote his way, I think.

Does that make up for stop and frisks, his support of "Warp Speed" and many other nightmares?

No, of course not.

Just another case of who will hurt me the least.
Click to expand...

Let's see. If I were a partisan, I would now be making a strawman that looks like this: You want the government putting poison in people's veins!

- Bill Gates Led Effort To Get $3.36 Billion Into The Coronavirus Deal
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coron...132249063.html

- Operation Warp Speed (OWS) is a Public–Private Partnership, initiated by Donald Trump to facilitate and accelerate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. On March 27 nearly $10 Billion for Operation Warp Speed through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

Moncef Slaoui was interviewed and named in May 2020 by the Trump Administration as Operation Warp Speed chief adviser. Slaoui, Moderna Board Member, was formerly Chairman of Global Research and Development and Chairman of Global Vaccines at GlaxoSmithKline. The project has military officers involved in management of the key focus areas of development, manufacturing, and distribution. Slaoui was formerly partnered with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Awarded Moderna $1 Billion and $1.6 Billion to Novavax. BARDA participates in the Department of Defense (DoD) and the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Click to expand...

H/T [MENTION=40029]PAF[/MENTION]
 
acptulsa said:
Let's see. If I were a partisan, I would now be making a strawman that looks like this: You want the government putting poison in people's veins!
Click to expand...

The authority by which government agencies like CDC and OSHA used to mandate that people take these poison jabs (and masking and lockdowns and six feet apart and all the rest of the COVIDiocy) was the "Chevron doctrine".

A SCOTUS majority, comprised of three Trump appointees, just overturned Chevron.

Thus, the regulatory bodies can no longer mandate that anybody take a jab.

Along with a thousand other things they can no longer mandate.

That's a win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Occam's Banana
The oficially **official** Trump vs. Harris "debate" thread
8 9 10
Replies
192
Views
22K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
The oficially **official** Vance vs. Walz "debate" thread
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
25K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Anti Federalist
ABC Moderator Linsey Davis Admits: ‘Fact-checking’ Was Only Planned for Trump
Replies
4
Views
715
jmdrake
jmdrake
Occam's Banana
Debate: Dave Smith vs. Andrew Wilson re: libertarianism & Christian populism
Replies
19
Views
2K
wizardwatson
wizardwatson
Occam's Banana
Gun control debate: Spike Cohen vs. David Hogg
Replies
16
Views
6K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top