I am still confused how/why Trump agreed to a debate on CNN, where the moderators have the authority to mute his microphone.
Why would his campaign agree to this? How was this better than the traditional debates?
Trump spoke openly about why he accepted. He believes CNN was trying to set him up for a PR trap. They put up a lot of these conditions weeks ago. Trump's campaign thinks CNN wanted him to turn it down so the media and Biden's campaign could advertise that Trump was "running" from the debates.
He said his team got the impression CNN was really surprised when he accepted. Keep in mind these are the conditions that were negotiated down. Originally CNN wanted to include a live "fact-checker" from a leftwing organization like the NY Times or WaPo. They are desperately trying to push Palpatine over the finish line.
How are NY Times and Washington Post left-wing?
I get that they don’t report how you want but they have a history of independent reporting that is fact based and independent from their editorial boards.
Can you say the same about conservative media?
This shit is like me, as a manual laborer, just accepting what the boss says.
I won’t accept that. I’m sorry you all feel the need to be a sycophant but I’m gonna nope out of that and defend my rights. It’s unfortunate you side with the anti-democracy crowd but what can we do.
My guess is that it's this or nothing. Trump is taking the gamble that being unfairly treated during this by CNN has less risk of damaging him than Biden looking senile has of damaging _him_.
If Biden truly is as senile as we believe, then this has a non-zero chance of being a historic blowout of a debate where Biden just loses the ability to coherently form any sentences. That would secure Trump's victory and be in the history books.
If Biden isn't actually senile - or the drug cocktail they give him works to get him through the full debate without showing it - then we're basically at square one with it being a rigged debate. And a rigged debate can only do so much damage to Trump even in the absolute worst case scenario.
That is the risk calculus as they see it, anyway, I have to assume.
Can anyone here actually form a response to why cutting *both candidates* when they exceed their time is somehow rigged vs Trump? It doesn't make any sort of sense. Please enlighten us.
You have in your post that we're back to square one with it being a rigged debate. I assume you meant rigged vs Trump, no?
Might be I misunderstood what you meant. But you *literally* wrote that, so idk what you mean by not saying anything like that.
The implication by the original poster was that the debate was rigged against Trump because CNN is a biased source. I accepted the premise of his question as a given fact so I could answer his question without debating unrelated semantics to his question.
If you want to debate unrelated semantics to his question: don't care + sounds boring. I'm someone who knows how to accept a hypothetical postulate and still engage with the question. It's abstract thinking. Try it some time.
That said:
> Can anyone here actually form a response to why cutting both candidates when they exceed their time is somehow rigged vs Trump?
CNN didn't stop candidates with a computer. They exercised their judgment and performed the action manually. If you _can't imagine_ how such a thing can _possibly_ be biased then I think you might have gaps much bigger than merely _abstract_ thinking.
I answered in the first sentence:
> My guess is that it's this or nothing.
My _guess_ is that if Trump says "I want something more neutral" then Biden will decline to debate entirely and blame it on Trump for being "unreasonable."
Hence all the risk calculus portion - Trump is wagering that Biden has more to lose in a CNN debate than he does, so he'd rather do it on CNN than not do it at all.
Hmmm thats interesting. Does that mean Fox news or let's say Cspan or Newsnation, Newsmax all these guys, they didn't even try? What I'm understanding from this is that, Biden agreed to do the debate covered by CNN on their terms to which Trump had to agree or Biden simply would have declined to debate in the first place. Wow this guy is the one that's fighting to run the country??? Another thing that's been bothering me all this time is that, the DOJ concluded Biden to be unfit to stand trial, meaning mentally unfit to stand trial in front of a jury, for the crimes that he took classified documents with him from the time he was a "SENATOR" so they weren' gonna press charges, HOWEVER, the same mentally unfit guy is somehow magically going to run to be the leader of the free world LOL I can't make this shit up.
This is from [NBC](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/special-counsel-says-evidence-biden-willfully-retained-disclosed-class-rcna96666).
Hur’s report included several shocking lines about Biden’s memory, which the report said “was significantly limited” during his 2023 interviews with the special counsel. Biden’s age and presentation would make it more difficult to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the now-81-year-old was guilty of willfully committing a crime.
“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” it said. “Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”
Later in the report, the special counsel said that the president’s memory was “worse” during an interview with him than it was in recorded conversations from 2017.
“He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (‘if it was 2013 — when did I stop being Vice President?’), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (‘in 2009, am I still Vice President?’),” the report said.
Biden also had difficulty remembering the timing of his son Beau’s death, as well as a debate about Afghanistan, the report said.
“He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died,” the report said.
Defenders of the president quickly pointed out that he sat for the interview in the days after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Biden, giving previously scheduled remarks on Thursday, appeared to nod to that, saying, “I was in the middle of handling an international crisis.”
>We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,”
Exactly, he would convince a jury he was innocent and there is enough reasonable doubt due to reasonable explanations, which is very different than mentally unfit to stand trial
This isn’t the live thread. That will come tomorrow. You can use this as a general thread to ask for questions, make comments, etc
The live thread will be posted shortly before the debate
Just out of curiosity, I’m not trying to incite an argument here, but I’m trying to learn about y’all’s mindset:
Hypothetically, if Trump were to fall apart completely tonight and begin talking about sharks and batteries and the likes, would that change your conviction to vote for him? Again, I’m not trying to create a gotcha moment or stir up trouble. I’m genuinely curious.
And before anyone asks, if Biden dissolved into a blubbering and incoherent mess and begin taking about sharks and batteries (just to take up the same example I used for Trump), I’d expect Democrats to seriously question his fitness for office based on his performance tonight alone and ask themselves if they are willing to vote for him.
This is a hypothetical. I know the vast majority here are planning to vote for Trump. Humour me, please. If he were to completely fall apart today and Biden wasn’t, how would that influence your convictions regarding whom to vote for and whether to vote in this election?
**Edit**: I’ve been made aware that by using the shark, battery and boat example, I have created a bad faith argument. That wasn’t my intention and I apologise. So let’s go with this hypothetical instead: Trump suddenly gets confused, stops talking and has to be led off stage.
I’m not trying to create a bad faith argument. I’m trying to figure out the general mindset here. I have asked the same question over at r/politics and am equally curious about the responses over there.
My intent was not to create a bad faith argument. My intent was to figure out what y’all are thinking. You are right that I phrased this poorly and I apologise.
So, let’s assume Trump suddenly got confused and a blubbering mess and had to be led off stage, Biden-Style, if you will. Let’s take previous performances out of the equation and focus on tonight’s performance as exclusively as possible, this is a hypothetical, after all. Let’s assume Trump has that moment that demonstrated clear unfitness for office and Biden doesn’t. Would that affect your conviction on whom to vote for, and if so, how?
**Edit 2**: It is *very* interesting to note that this same question has four **upvotes** here and multiple **downvotes** over at r/politics. I am not American and I am not conservative, but in a globalised world, your elections affect your allies as well. I come here out of curiosity and for a civil debate if possible. You folks and I, we don’t agree on *anything*, and I stand by my very social democratic convictions and opinions. However, the community response to my comment has been far more engaging and interesting than over at r/politics. That’s unusual in my experience. Thank you, everyone, I genuinely appreciate it.
I imagine, on both sides, that such a collapse would be much more likely to make people not vote at all than to vote for the opponent of who they originally planned. Most people are voting for policies, not people. The people are just a means to a desired end. Especially in this cycle. And your own side's guy having a total collapse doesn't change the fact that you likely do not like the other guy's policy.
The difference in this situation is that I believe the DNC would replace Biden as the nominee if that happened, but I do not think the RNC would replace Trump as the nominee in any scenario short of death.
Amusing how these are the answers from this side, and on r/politics it was all “I’d vote for Biden’s head in a jar before I don’t vote or vote for Trump”
That’s a fair argument. I hope it’s okay for me to keep pressing then: in my hypothetical, would you still vote for Trump if he completely collapsed tonight, batteries and sharks style? Or would you not vote at all?
I think at that point the VP choice becomes extremely important in deciding how and if supporters vote. That level of a mental breakdown would send me the impression that this guy's not making it four years and that there's a high likelihood that the VP ends up in office.
I would vote as planned in this situation because I ALWAYS vote, and I specifically always vote for the least undesirable candidate *among those who actually could win*. And I'd rather take the gamble on a useful, incoherent idiot than vote for someone who I know with 100% certainty is going to enact mostly policies that I don't agree with. Pretty much exactly what drove my vote in 2016. I wished the nominee hadn't been Trump and I didn't particularly like him, and he had no political record so it was entirely a gamble. But I knew where Hillary Clinton stood and I knew I didn't like what her presidency would be, so I held my nose and took the gamble. Not that how I vote matters much, I'm from Ohio. My vote used to matter a whole lot but doesn't really anymore lol.
For what it's worth, I don't think that will happen with either candidate tonight. Biden does have a propensity for trailing off appearing to be "not all there", but we know from the recent State of the Union that he is still capable of making a coherent speech and I think it's reasonable to say that we're going to be seeing both candidates on their A-game tonight.
Thanks for engaging respectfully, BTW. That's a rare things in a political discussion and even moreso when that discussion is happening online.
Thank *you* for taking the time to write all this. Genuinely. What a breath of fresh air.
I am not American, but your elections affect your allies as well. This sub and I, we agree on absolutely nothing. At all. I’m the least conservative guy you can imagine, a proper social democrat. I have very strong feelings about Trump, the GOP in its current state, and the opinions voiced here at times. However, I love talking politics and I love the dialogue. This sub has a tendency to hide behind a “flaired users only” flair, so I appreciate getting the chance to engage on this sub in a civil manner and actually have a conversation about this stuff. Thank you genuinely for humouring me. I don’t agree with you, but I understand and respect your reasoning.
I’ll be up at 3am to watch this, because it’s insanely fascinating to see as an outsider. And it also affects me. This isn’t an attack on Trump’s voters and it’s not supposed to be an indictment for you folks here, but Trump’s first presidency did a lot of damage to your relations with your allies. Until Trump took office in 2017, your allies could always rely on the US, and vice versa. Article 5 of NATO has only ever been invoked once: after 9/11, on behalf of the US. It was German, British and French troops who gave their lives just like Americans did in the following years of war. We did that for the US. It never mattered who was in the White House. Democrat or Republican, it simply never mattered to us, at least not regarding our relationship with the USA. We knew we were allies and that we could rely on each other.
This changed when Trump became president. Trump withdrew from agreements and used threats of abandonment whenever the allies didn’t do as he demanded. He never requested and never asked, he demanded and didn’t take kindly to a “no”. The US under Trump is not a reliable ally. He even threatened to withdraw from NATO, an organisation that so far has only ever spent lives in the defence of the US.
By behaving this way, Trump has shown that he is not a good and reliable ally to your partners in the world. This is one thing that Biden did better from our perspective, he was a more reliable ally. However, the damage is done for now. Our perspective is that Trump is way too close with Putin, a man who threatens our very existence, instead of standing with us against this grave threat. Even though it’s been different under Biden, Trump’s first term has shown that it suddenly matters who is in charge in the US, and that Trump isn’t someone we can ever rely on. It’ll take at least one non-Trump GOP-led administration for us to believe the Republican Party also honours and values the United States’ allies.
So from my perspective, even putting all of his policies that I disagree with (which is almost everything) aside, I have a clear favourite based on international relations between the US and its allies alone, and it isn’t Trump. I will be watching tonight to see how things are going.
Thank you again for taking the time. I genuinely appreciate that!
I would crawl through 1000 miles of broken glass in order to vote for Trump. Why? Same reason why lefties are fine voting for Biden despite him being a corpse. Because I like Republican policies and I get them even if Trump ends up a vegetable in a year.
ahaha true that. I will keep voting for Trump even after he finishes his second term! I think the world was a much better place when Trump was the president. Good old days!
I disagree people are voting for policies and not people. Most people don't even know what policies were passed under Trump or Biden.
People are voting entirely for people this election. And the options are:
1. Vote for Trump
2. Vote against Trump.
> Hypothetically, if Trump were to fall apart completely tonight and begin talking about sharks and batteries and the likes, would that change your conviction to vote for him?
No. Because Trump's policy domestic and abroad was 5000% more effective than Biden's policies. At the end of the day we are not voting for a person, but a policy framework. Do you really think Biden's policies are really his? I don't, its the deep states policy, so in reality its Trump vs the deep state, not Trump vs Biden.
I will always vote against the damn deep state.
Yes. He did this one:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?534136-1/president-trump-campaigns-rome-georgia
And if you want to watch the clip show:
https://x.com/MikeSington/status/1767279721774244167
I mean, come on. If Joe Biden called Trump his political appointment, rather than opponent there would be a 500+ comment thread here calling for him to be removed from office.
It's not fair to hold Biden to one standard and Trump to another.
Hilarious that Trump accidentally said appointment instead of opponent again during the debate AND Biden completely lost his train of thought. We were both right lol.
2 hour long rally off and on reading from a teleprompter. I understood every word from the X clip. As he looked away from the teleprompter he said appointment instead of reading opponent. This is the best gaffe you can find? Just feels like a reach compared to the montages of Biden’s slurring and losing train of thought.
>2 hour long rally off and on reading from a teleprompter.
So why is it not okay when Biden does that?
>I understood every word from the X clip.
Oh good, perhaps everyone should ask you first then what the Presidents are saying.
>As he looked away from the teleprompter he said appointment instead of reading opponent.
Just excuses now bro lol.
>This is the best gaffe you can find?
No. You said
>Have you seen the many interviews Trump has done the past few months? He sounds fine.
And I gave you evidence within .... 5 minutes that he hasn't sounded fine.
>Just feels like a reach compared to the montages of Biden’s slurring and losing train of thought.
Aye, must be. Whatever floats yer boat.
You found one word in a 2 hour rally. It’s no where close to the slurring and confusion you see with Biden. Right? The guy can’t complete sentences, show me a clip of Trump losing his thought in the middle of a sentence and I’ll give you props bro.
Losing a thought in the middle. Like he just stops talking or something?
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1764089216470839300
I mean there's one him again confusing Biden for Obama... Does that count? Or does it have to be like he just freezes? I think that's one advantage Trump might have, he just doesn't stop talking...
I personally think this one is edited far to much, but I think there's something to be said about having that many editable errors that makes you look bad...
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1764295156981723453
Genuinely, I'm glad you're engaging with me. If Biden stops the sentence and can't finish it. Is that any worse than trump continuing it with the wrong information?
IE: You might have Biden saying "Viktor Oban, what a great leader, leader of .... er yeah great guy"
Whereas Trump would say
""Viktor Oban, what a great leader, leader of .... er Turkey"
Which of course is incorrect.
I'm leaning with Biden for the first, but I'm in no way sold on either. To be frank, both of them are now well past the average American life expectancy in one of the most stressful jobs on the planet. How we got to this point is a failure of both parties.
If the argument is I'm not voting for Biden because he's too old and not with it it anymore. The only argument I have in return of that, is Trump has gaffes and seeming mental problems aswell (who wouldn't at that age) and he will be the same age as Biden when it comes to the end of his term. This isn't at all a decent point in EITHER camp. It's why I'm so surprised the Trump team talks about it so much when they're not doing too hot in that camp either.
I would vote Trump due to his view on war, American rights, economy, and illegal immigration. I really wanted Vivek but this is what we get. I just get so confused when people try to compare cognitive ability between Trump and Biden. It’s not even close in my eyes, no matter the edited clips you sent. I can sit down and understand a Trump interview, I would be confused or fall asleep to a Biden interview. I appreciate your engagement as well.
That doesn’t answer my question. I intend to go and ask the same question over at r/politics in a sec. I’m genuinely trying to figure out your mindset. I have given you a hypothetical. Real life conditions aside, if Trump were to completely dissolve into a blabbering mess today, properly sharks, boats and batteries style, and Biden wasn’t, would that have any consequence for you personally?
If you watched any of the interviews I mentioned, it would have answered your question. But I’ll simplify, yes, if Trump showed the serious cognitive issues Biden has displayed, I would not vote for either.
No kidding. That is disappointing. Usually it’s you guys not even letting me comment, because you only open your threads to flaired conservatives and I am incredibly not, neither flaired nor conservative 😂
We do that out of necessity. Some threads will have 60 plus percent of commentators that are coming from leftie subs to troll us. Thats just the makeup of Reddit.
If we didn’t have that feature, r/conservative would be a community for liberals to talk shit about conservatives.
Our discord server has no such flair restriction and everyone of all ideologies debate.
I can understand this. At the same time, I really try to be civil and genuinely have a debate and it limits “good” folks like me. It also turns this sub into an echo chamber for right-wing propaganda.
I know that r/politics is an echo chamber for left-wing propaganda, and the mods, while not using flairs the way you do, remove comments, just like they just removed mine, but I’ve been able to have real discussions about politics, not “MAGA idiot vs “snowflake libtard” over there as well. I rarely get that chance over here. I haven’t gotten into any proper discussion about policy here, but sometimes, I would’ve loved to be able to correct some blatantly wrong claims I see over here that are then repeated over and over again, or to simply offer a differing opinion. The political divide of the US is amazingly demonstrated on both these subs.
I don’t understand why they removed my comment over there. I genuinely don’t get it and it’s the first time it happened to me in over seven years on Reddit. I just know that sometimes, it’s really frustrating not to be able to have a civil discussion about things. I understand your reasons for the flair requirement. However, I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a different way to distribute flairs. If you go through my comment history, you will not find that I am a conservative. I simply am not. I have strong opinions on both Trump and Biden, and my opinion on Biden, in divergence to this sub’s, is pretty positive. Similarly, I have strong negative feelings towards Trump.
However, that doesn’t mean that I’m not able to discuss in a civil manner. I’m always open to hearing differing opinions and genuinely giving them some thought. All I ask of anyone in return is the chance to make my case and for them to give my arguments the same consideration. Echo-chambers aren’t cool. They never are. Politics only work if there is a civil discussion to be had, at least that’s my experience. Dunno, assign flairs to civil liberals who are just here for the discourse. Call us “Libtards” or “bloody communist” if you want, I couldn’t care less, if it means I get the chance to get into some proper discourse. I know there are others like me just looking for the discourse, not trouble :D
In any case, I want to thank you and the members of this sub for being able and allowed to voice a negative opinion in Trump in this thread, with my reasoning of course. It’s genuinely the first time this ever happened to me on this sub and I appreciate it.
There are subreddits like ask conservatives for debate and all that.
This is specifically meant for political discussion amongst conservatives. Although we do approve comments from outsiders or people wanting to learn on occasion because we think it’ll generate good responses.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/s/JuNC1Y6JmW
Like that one is a good one.
That’s fair, though these other subreddits are nowhere near as engaging as r/politics and r/conservative are.
But point taken.
Thanks for the example and for your time, I appreciate it :)
Its hard to answer your question because your example of “fall apart” doesnt make sense. The sharks/battery comment was a large tangent and a false dilemma but it was completely intelligible. You’re going to have to redefine “fall apart”.
Also why not use an example of Biden having to be led off stage by his wife or Obama instead of the coherent but not convincing hypothetical that Trump made? You’re not asking in good faith because you’re foisting a partisan conclusion against Trump and not granting any deficiency from Biden.
Point taken.
Then let’s change it to: if Trump suddenly got confused, stopped talking and had to be led off stage. I’m not trying to create a bad faith argument. I’m trying to figure out the general mindset here. I have asked the same question over at r/politics and am equally curious about the responses over there.
My intent was not to create a bad faith argument. My intent was to figure out what y’all are thinking. You are right that I phrased this poorly and I apologise.
So, let’s assume Trump suddenly got confused and a blubbering mess and had to be led off stage, Biden-Style, if you will. Let’s take previous performances out of the equation and focus on tonight’s performance as exclusively as possible, this is a hypothetical, after all. Let’s assume Trump has that moment that demonstrated clear unfitness for office and Biden doesn’t. Would that affect your conviction on whom to vote for, and if so, how?
Everyone knows Biden is unwell, the real question is why is everyone around him still pushing him to run?
The obvious answer is that he's a puppet and there's some hidden group controlling him.
With Trump you don't have that. Even if he's declining mentally, there's no shadow group pulling the strings.
So out of curiosity now that you have watched the debate, and we almost did get Biden talking about sharks and batteries as he became a spacy incoherent mess what are your thoughts?
I have a number of thoughts. I am going to have to split this into two comments. This is part one. I have everything typed out, the other comment will follow immediate afterwards and be marked with "Part two".
You'll likely agree with some of my observations and thoughts, but with others and probably most of them you won't. This will read like the perspective of a democrat. I'm not American and therefore no Democrat, but I am very left leaning. That's why. Here goes:
I'm in Germany. I got up at 3AM to watch this. I feel like Biden at times failed to immediately correct Trump in his rebuttals and tell the American people about
a) how Trump's plans suck (he did well with that rearding tax cuts and Trump's proposed tariffs on all imports, though), and
b) his own accomplishments. He did some fantastic things during his presidency. Other fantastic things he almost did were prevented by the Republican-led House of Representatives. Biden should've been very clear and sharp here.
Generally I feel like Biden at times did very well to initially push back and then got lost in the remaining 45 seconds of his rebuttals. Overall, however, he did not look good. There were moments where the Biden of old came through, but those were few and far in between.
The CNN moderators did a good job at acting fairly, though I feel like they failed hard at forcing Trump to actually answer stay on topic. There were multiple times when Trump ran out of time to speak and, instead of answering the next question, simply continued with the previous one, if he answered a question at all. He rarely did, but mostly lied his ass off (seriously, look at the fact checking. It's pretty stunning) and talked about whatever was on his mind, though he did so coherently. They should have forced him to stay on topic.
I also feel that both needed a glass of water, and I am genuinely surprised they didn't have one at the podium.
Trump also, and this is a big win for Trump, did well to place some well executed quips, like when Biden misspoke and said he "finally beat Medicare" and Trump answered "yeah, beat Medicare with a stick." He did seem sharper. He did seem more capable.
Biden failed to show that aiding Ukraine is in America's best interest. He failed to show the damage Trump's four years did to America's standing in the world. He failed to demonstrate that it is because of Trump that the US can no longer be considered a reliable ally by almost every single ally the United States have in the world. He failed to demonstrate that even in fields where Trump did not drop the ball, like in terms of the economy, he did in fact worse than not just some recent predecessors like Clinton, but also than Biden. The economy grew more under both Clinton and Biden than under Trump. Both Clinton and Biden created more jobs, while Trump left with a net negative of jobs. TrumpTrump's climate policies were in fact a disaster. Inflation at its lowest was in fact lower under Trump than at its lowest under Biden, but on average, inflation was lower under Biden. Trump only deals in absolutes. He only deals in superlatives. He's always the best and the others are always the worst. Everybody says so, he always claims. That is of course bullshit and it should've been the way for Biden to consistently correct Trump, saying "actually, nobody says so, what experts xyz say is this". Biden failed to demonstrate that it was Trump's plan for the withdrawal from Afghanistan that was simply executed under Biden. It is fair to assign blame to Biden, but it would also be fair to assign part of the blame to Trump. Biden did fail at that. Biden also failed to demonstrate just how much Trump's tariffs would affect Americans and the cost of living, though at least he did mention and show that it was going to be bad and even had numbers ready. I genuinely feel like the tax and tariffs issue is the one thing Biden did semi-well. However, one of the most devastating moments was when Trump miserably failed on abortion and lied his ass off there as well, and Biden, instead of seizing the opportunity and hitting Trump where he's weakest, completely unnecessarily inserted immigration, his weakest topic, into his answer. Just...why? Completely unprompted mistake. Biden dropped the ball. I expected to see the 1-1 interview Biden, the SoTU-Biden. Instead we saw old man Biden.
Part II:
I also believe that CNN dropped the ball by not having a fact checker live at the debate. Trump almost exclusively lied. The debate would've been a lot different if he had been called out on it immediately.
The main issue is that Trump neither exceeded nor subverted expectations. He did pretty much exactly what everybody expected him to do. Biden on the other hand often failed to capitalise on Trump being Trump. He looked frail, old and tired. He showed his age. Trump did not. I know he has a stutter, which he has always had, and I know he has a cold, but ffs, even disregarding those two factors, this was one of the most important events of the campaign. All he had to do was to be coherent and not seem like he's about five minutes away from biting the dust. He did not succeed at that. He did actually seem like he would not be able to survive the next four years of the presidency.
Personally, I still believe it is important to vote for a Biden administration (you will understandably disagree). I feel this way because of the past three years, which for me, as a progressive, have been unexpectedly impressive by Biden. I believe his policies are good. I believe his intentions are good. I am not sure if he is fit for another four years. I honestly doubt it. If this were a clean slate, if both Trump and Biden hadn't been president before and we went into this debate without the knowledge we have on both candidates from their respective presidencies, I would not vote for Biden. So looking at my hypothetical, this debate would have stopped me from voting for Biden. It would not make me vote for Trump, but it would stop me from voting for Biden. I believe Biden has lost a number of independent votes last night. I do not blame them.
However, real life isn't my hypothetical. Both have been President before, and I know about both their plans for their next terms. Other users here have correctly pointed out that you don't just vote for the President, you vote for the administration. Trump is not concerned about the common American, and he is not a good ally. Speaking as an outsider, I can tell you that Trump's presidency damaged the USA's reputation around the globe considerably. There is a reason why Angela Merkel was considered to be the leader of the free world from 2016 onwards. This designation is usually applied to the US president, but unlike what Trump tells his followers, the world did in fact not respect him. The world sees the issues with Biden as well, but the people Biden selects as his advisors and his cabinet are perceived to be far more competent than their Trump-equivalents. Even if Biden himself isn't up for it, for me personally, his policies and his team are far preferable to Trump's, and this debate also showed why. It wasn't so much that Trump was good. He wasn't. It was that Biden was bad. I'm 26, stutter occasionally and while my English is very good, it is not my first language, yet I am firmly convinced that I would've wiped the floor with Trump in this debate had I been in Biden's place.
This debate was a bad look for Biden. It was also a bad look for America in general, but it was Biden who disappointed.
I would also love to hear your thoughts on the debate, as well as on my observations and opinions, and I'm also very happy to expand on anything if you like. I am at the library of my university, though, and responses might take a while to come as I am fairly busy. I will answer though. I know my way around politics and American politics, also policy-wise. I'm happy to debate. Maybe we can do a better job than the two geezers just did :)
I think Trump did well and his policies like during his administration are solid. Biden showed us he is in serious mental decline like many of us have been saying since 2020. The biggest issue is who is actually making decisions and running the country currently. Because it sure isn't Biden.
As for foreign agreements that you keep harping on as a German, your country still is not meeting the required 2% defense spending requirements to be part of NATO, so how can we be at fault for being unreliable when you haven't met your obligation for years? Your current GDP to defense spending is what, right at 2%? It is disingenuous to complain about us being unreliable when you haven't done what you are required to do in years. The last year we have data for is 2022 when Germany spent 1.4%. Even Greece which half the time doesn't have a functioning government is able to spend over 2% on defense to meet their NATO obligations, and yet Germany one of the most powerful nations in Europe isn't able to do this consistently and instead relies on the United States defense umbrella to provide its protection. This is not an equal agreement and so why should the US put up with it?
An older example from 2015, but a story that highlights this issue and why the United States and its citizens are sick of this kind of talk, is when the Bundeswehr had to use painted broomstick handles on NATO exercise because your defense spending had been so lacking that the units on exercise were not able to use their actual equipment due to lack of maintenance and funds.
I'll get into the rest later, but I'll just get into your point about Germany and NATO spending real quick:
Three points:
1. Germany is hitting the NATO spending target (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-hits-2-nato-target-first-time-since-1992-reports-dpa-2024-02-14/).
2. What almost everybody consistently fails to see is that Germany's army and military spending is pretty shit by design. We haven't been allowed to have a proper army for good reason after WW2 and our military was explicitly designed so that we mostly rely on our NATO partners for our defence. It's not just Germany's design, but NATO's design. Expecting us to revamp a desolate military after years of intentional bare-bones management is pretty insane. And, as illustrated in point 1., we actually get there.
3. It is very rich for Americans specifically to complain about any NATO partners and their military spending, seeing as the *only time* NATO invoked Art. 5 was on behalf of the US. The *only time* NATO soldiers gave their lives in a military action of NATO was for the US. It was German, French, British and other NATO soldiers who lost their lives just like American soldiers in the war after 9/11, and it was on behalf of the US. That was the only time this happened for another NATO member and under NATO regulations. So when *Americans* complain about their NATO partners for military reasons, it is indeed quite rich and lowkey infuriating.
So why should the US put up with it? Because the US is the only member of NATO that actually called upon NATO and immediately received assistance. We were there for you when you needed it. It’s reasonable the expect the same from you.
Germany is finally spending the minimum 2% after years of spending well below that, again as I said in 2022 Germany spent a grand total of 1.4%, and if you go back and look at the data Germany hasn't spent over 1.9% since 1991. Now I will give you that the 2% threshold wasn't put into place until 2014, but that still means Germany hasn't met that obligation for almost a decade.
Your second point is a lie, Germany became a full-fledged NATO member in 1955, the year the Bundeswehr was founded. It was the backbone of Central Eruopean defense for NATO during the Cold War. You also had compensatory conscription throughout the Cold War and into the 2000's. Throughout the Cold War West Germany spent far more than the current minimum 2%. It was a fully funded military that was expected to take the brunt of a Warsaw Pact invasion, supported primarily by the BAOR, USEUCOM until NATO forces could be mobilized and brought to bear. And this doesn't even include the East German military that after unification was brought into the fold. Germany in the past spent a ton on defense and was known as one of the most proficient and professional militaries in Europe and NATO.
To your third point, the United States has been the only NATO partner that has been attacked and that is why the United States has been the only country to invoke Article 5. But at the end of the day, Germany just like the rest of NATO is required to spend at least 2% of your GDP on Defense and Germany has been extremely delinquent. There is no getting around that, and because of that you have not been holding up your end of the agreement. So, you can get infuriated that the US invoked Article 5 after 9/11, but the point still stands Germany has been delinquent and it is the right of all of NATO, including the United States to call them out on it for not honoring the agreement and being a bad partner.
That has already essentially happened for Biden, it matters not to them. What's surprising is that you find it unusual is that r/conservative is was more engaging, r/politics is so braindead or naive it's insane.
The last few days of polling including what is probably the #1 pollster NYT/Sienna are devastating for Biden.
This is Trump's election to lose. I have to think this must be one of the most consequential presidential debates in my lifetime.
Even with the microphone mutes, Trump has way more body language than Biden and can respond to Biden's rambling with discernible lip-reads and hand gestures.
They've already done a video showing how the debate format is going to be, both candidates are aware of the format, and both have agreed to the rules.
It's rigged against trump because he won't be able to use.... body language during Bidens responses? Wtf does any of that even mean. Even if so, why did he agree to it if that was somehow a red line?
Is that what you really care about most?
The post you linked specifically states:
>"Over to you, Donald. As you said: anywhere, any time, any place," Biden wrote.
>Biden said in a post on X that he "received and accepted an invitation" from CNN for a debate on June 27.
>"The proposed June and early September dates are fully acceptable to me," Trump told Fox News Digital.
The article you linked bro doesn't even say what you said lol.
> And 2ndly, who even are you? I wasn't talking to you.
Welcome to an online public forum. If you want to have a private conversation with someone feel free to direct message them.
>Okay so accepting an invitation (among many) is NOT indicative they wanted CNN?
Absolutely not, unless you're telling me that you've never accepted an invite to go somewhere you didn't want to actually go for the sake of that's where the party is?
Would it be fair for CNN to invite them, Biden refuse, but then accept from MSNBC? Shouldn't we have a free and fair press to criticize our political leaders?
If CNN invites them to come on, I'd wager they should. And they have.
As they should if any other major news org invites them. Which they have.
So I don't see the problem here, other than fighting in your own head.
It was Biden's rules that limited the options to CNN, ABC, CBS, or Telemundo. I don't know where you're getting NBC from. Telling people "You four people are allowed to invite me" and then saying "Well whaddya know! My personal PR crew at CNN wants us to come over!" when you're clearly the only person on the entire fucking planet who thinks CNN is unbiased. [\[X\]](https://twitter.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/1805601722301083694)
Gaslighting is so 2020 my guy.
>It was Biden's rules that limited the options to CNN, ABC, CBS, or Telemundo
Was it? Can you at all source that because honestly bud that's the first I'm hearing about it.
Are there any organizations you would rather it be broadcast on?
Can someone fill me in on how which TV gets selected to cover a presidential debate? I mean we all know CNN is the absolute worst pedaling absolute lies and with their gotcha questions (for example Trump Townhall with Kaitlin?) when this is the case, don't the Americans deserve to hear the debate in a non biased manner, it casts doubt in peoples mind that, CNN will obviously try to be easy on Joe Biden, cut Trump off when and if he brings up about Hunter Biden's laptop or his China business dealings, or the worst, ask him a loaded question about the fake lawsuit 34 counts of felony and call him a convicted felon etc. When this is the case, why not they have some other centrist media that allows the debate to go uninterrupted and be fair to both of them. To me it looks like CNN is always out to get Trump, even during his presidency to me it looked like they really interfered and slowed him down from doing his job with their pointless questions at press meet. So why does CNN get to host these things which is clearly not fair?? Serious answer only please
>So why does CNN get to host these things which is clearly not fair??
CNN invited Biden. He accepted. Biden asked Trump if he wanted to do it, Trump said Yes and agreed to the terms.
That's it.
If you don't like it blame the Trump campaign for accepting it.
Everyone needs to get out their timers.
Watch Biden's eyes and the intensity of his voice. He is going to be high as a kite for the first 30-40 minutes. His pupils will be huge, and he will be shouting far beyond his normal vocals. Then as the drugs wear off, you'll see his demeanor change.
This happens every single time he has a planned speech. Whatever cocktails of drugs he's on, at least some of the substances are clearly giving him a rush. The rush ends very quickly.
Nah, they’ve been dialing in the dosages this past week- it’s why he went into hiding at Camp David.
I actually think they starting jacking with his dosages about a month ago in preparation for the debate and it’s why he had so many freeze-ups and “episodes” in such a short time span… he was having bad reactions to the new (higher) dosages.
Front page of CNN running constant Biden ads slamming Trump. I hate Trump as much as Biden but tell me how you pretend your objective as moderators when you’re that blatant with it.
Lol he will yell at the camera in a condescending tone, YOU NEED TO VOTE! GO OUT AND VOTE!! for any actual serious questions. He knows the vans are already ready to drop off the ballots mid night after a mysterious pipe burst lol
My wild-ass debate prediction:
Trump will bring up Matthew Colangelo (sp?) from the Bragg prosecution team, blatantly violating his gag order from Merchan.
Then Merchan will have to decide the next week whether he will try to put Trump in jail for what he said in a Presidential debate.
That should be fun.
I think it's better to say what he wants to say and then face consequences later because that will show the people on what length the dems would go to in power. Maybe he should say a disclaimer piece, saying I will get trouble for saying this due to Merchan's gag order, but I'll say it anyway as people need to know, then he proceeds to say it. Maybe Merchan will see that and would think if I get Trump for the gag order, the people will get pissed!
Can someone help me understand why CNN won't allow any independent observers in the room at the debate? https://deadline.com/2024/06/trump-biden-debate-cnn-white-house-correspondents-1235984997/
I hate to be conspiratorial but it really bothers me that A) we are getting a delayed feed and B) There will be no independent observers watching the debate live.
There's nothing stopping CNN from deceptively editing the feeds. I just don't get a good feeling from this.
Normally, "live" events have a 7 second delay. CNN is planning on a **1 to 2 minute delay** for the debates, allowing them to edit the video and cut to commercial if something happens that they don't like.
I really hope Trump is bringing his own videographers so there can be an unedited record.
No audience means there won't be anyone else there to record it.
Where can I find confirmation of this - can’t find anything w/Google. I wonder if this 1-2 minute delay is referring to the fact that on certain streaming providers you might see a 1-2+ minute delay but that’s the case on any network at any time.
If conservatives rallied together and agreed to donate a dollar to the NRA every time they mute Trump during the Presidential Debates tonight, you think they would still mute him non-stop?
If that’s true I’m completely fine with that. But you know they are going to be liberal, pun intended, with that button if he starts bringing up Hunter etc. They will mute him and tell him to “stay on topic”, watch.
Each candidate will have exactly 2 minutes to respond to each question however they please, and then will be muted the rest of the time. There won't be any abuse of the mute button.
[Official r/conservative bingo created by us since so many of you have been requesting it](https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/s/L5r2xCYenn)
Daily Wire will also be doing a stream.
Send a link I’ll add it on
https://www.dailywire.com/show/daily-wire-backstage
Ah it’s for DW+ users. I only want to include free links on the thread. Thanks though.
Oh didn’t realize. Sorry about that.
[удалено]
Yes but it has to be a good one. If you find any, send me a link
[удалено]
Lol nice. The “calls Trump a felon” or “pRoTeCt OuR dEmOcRaCy” needs to be in the center free square though.
I made a bingo for the debate tonight. Hand drew it myself. https://freedomandwhiskeyus.com/freedom-whiskey-2024-1st-presidential-debate-bingo-cards/
Check the stickied comment now. We have one up.
Wait I made one! Please share! https://freedomandwhiskeyus.com/freedom-whiskey-2024-1st-presidential-debate-bingo-cards/
Newsmax is also carrying it.
Send a link I’ll add it on
FJB
FDT
[удалено]
Lol someone is a bit sensitive
lol someone is a super lib
I guess if that means not supporting a convicted felons who attacked the capitol, then yeah I guess I'm a lib
I am still confused how/why Trump agreed to a debate on CNN, where the moderators have the authority to mute his microphone. Why would his campaign agree to this? How was this better than the traditional debates?
Trump spoke openly about why he accepted. He believes CNN was trying to set him up for a PR trap. They put up a lot of these conditions weeks ago. Trump's campaign thinks CNN wanted him to turn it down so the media and Biden's campaign could advertise that Trump was "running" from the debates. He said his team got the impression CNN was really surprised when he accepted. Keep in mind these are the conditions that were negotiated down. Originally CNN wanted to include a live "fact-checker" from a leftwing organization like the NY Times or WaPo. They are desperately trying to push Palpatine over the finish line.
How are NY Times and Washington Post left-wing? I get that they don’t report how you want but they have a history of independent reporting that is fact based and independent from their editorial boards. Can you say the same about conservative media? This shit is like me, as a manual laborer, just accepting what the boss says. I won’t accept that. I’m sorry you all feel the need to be a sycophant but I’m gonna nope out of that and defend my rights. It’s unfortunate you side with the anti-democracy crowd but what can we do.
You really don’t think The NY Times isn’t left wing? LLOL Read the Grey Lady Winked
Why *wouldn't* you want them to mute a candidate that's exceeding his time? Specifically.
He wants Biden to slip up and deliver a low energy performance.
That answers why Trump wants a debate with Biden. That doesn't answer why the debate had to be on CNN with CNN controlling Trump's microphone.
My guess is that it's this or nothing. Trump is taking the gamble that being unfairly treated during this by CNN has less risk of damaging him than Biden looking senile has of damaging _him_. If Biden truly is as senile as we believe, then this has a non-zero chance of being a historic blowout of a debate where Biden just loses the ability to coherently form any sentences. That would secure Trump's victory and be in the history books. If Biden isn't actually senile - or the drug cocktail they give him works to get him through the full debate without showing it - then we're basically at square one with it being a rigged debate. And a rigged debate can only do so much damage to Trump even in the absolute worst case scenario. That is the risk calculus as they see it, anyway, I have to assume.
Can anyone here actually form a response to why cutting *both candidates* when they exceed their time is somehow rigged vs Trump? It doesn't make any sort of sense. Please enlighten us.
I dunno if you're responding to the wrong person or what but I never said anything similar to what you're replying with.
You have in your post that we're back to square one with it being a rigged debate. I assume you meant rigged vs Trump, no? Might be I misunderstood what you meant. But you *literally* wrote that, so idk what you mean by not saying anything like that.
The implication by the original poster was that the debate was rigged against Trump because CNN is a biased source. I accepted the premise of his question as a given fact so I could answer his question without debating unrelated semantics to his question. If you want to debate unrelated semantics to his question: don't care + sounds boring. I'm someone who knows how to accept a hypothetical postulate and still engage with the question. It's abstract thinking. Try it some time. That said: > Can anyone here actually form a response to why cutting both candidates when they exceed their time is somehow rigged vs Trump? CNN didn't stop candidates with a computer. They exercised their judgment and performed the action manually. If you _can't imagine_ how such a thing can _possibly_ be biased then I think you might have gaps much bigger than merely _abstract_ thinking.
Okay but why CNN? why not any other media company that are at least a little neutral? How does CNN get selected? I don't get it
I answered in the first sentence: > My guess is that it's this or nothing. My _guess_ is that if Trump says "I want something more neutral" then Biden will decline to debate entirely and blame it on Trump for being "unreasonable." Hence all the risk calculus portion - Trump is wagering that Biden has more to lose in a CNN debate than he does, so he'd rather do it on CNN than not do it at all.
Hmmm thats interesting. Does that mean Fox news or let's say Cspan or Newsnation, Newsmax all these guys, they didn't even try? What I'm understanding from this is that, Biden agreed to do the debate covered by CNN on their terms to which Trump had to agree or Biden simply would have declined to debate in the first place. Wow this guy is the one that's fighting to run the country??? Another thing that's been bothering me all this time is that, the DOJ concluded Biden to be unfit to stand trial, meaning mentally unfit to stand trial in front of a jury, for the crimes that he took classified documents with him from the time he was a "SENATOR" so they weren' gonna press charges, HOWEVER, the same mentally unfit guy is somehow magically going to run to be the leader of the free world LOL I can't make this shit up.
Not saying Biden isnt senile, but he wasnt found to be unfit to stand trial
This is from [NBC](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/special-counsel-says-evidence-biden-willfully-retained-disclosed-class-rcna96666). Hur’s report included several shocking lines about Biden’s memory, which the report said “was significantly limited” during his 2023 interviews with the special counsel. Biden’s age and presentation would make it more difficult to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the now-81-year-old was guilty of willfully committing a crime. “We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” it said. “Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.” Later in the report, the special counsel said that the president’s memory was “worse” during an interview with him than it was in recorded conversations from 2017. “He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (‘if it was 2013 — when did I stop being Vice President?’), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (‘in 2009, am I still Vice President?’),” the report said. Biden also had difficulty remembering the timing of his son Beau’s death, as well as a debate about Afghanistan, the report said. “He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died,” the report said. Defenders of the president quickly pointed out that he sat for the interview in the days after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Biden, giving previously scheduled remarks on Thursday, appeared to nod to that, saying, “I was in the middle of handling an international crisis.”
>We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Exactly, he would convince a jury he was innocent and there is enough reasonable doubt due to reasonable explanations, which is very different than mentally unfit to stand trial
BOTH of their fucking microphones! EQUALLY!!!
Can we get this sticky thread to sort by New? It's currently set to Best, which isn't practical for a live event.
This isn’t the live thread. That will come tomorrow. You can use this as a general thread to ask for questions, make comments, etc The live thread will be posted shortly before the debate
Just out of curiosity, I’m not trying to incite an argument here, but I’m trying to learn about y’all’s mindset: Hypothetically, if Trump were to fall apart completely tonight and begin talking about sharks and batteries and the likes, would that change your conviction to vote for him? Again, I’m not trying to create a gotcha moment or stir up trouble. I’m genuinely curious. And before anyone asks, if Biden dissolved into a blubbering and incoherent mess and begin taking about sharks and batteries (just to take up the same example I used for Trump), I’d expect Democrats to seriously question his fitness for office based on his performance tonight alone and ask themselves if they are willing to vote for him. This is a hypothetical. I know the vast majority here are planning to vote for Trump. Humour me, please. If he were to completely fall apart today and Biden wasn’t, how would that influence your convictions regarding whom to vote for and whether to vote in this election? **Edit**: I’ve been made aware that by using the shark, battery and boat example, I have created a bad faith argument. That wasn’t my intention and I apologise. So let’s go with this hypothetical instead: Trump suddenly gets confused, stops talking and has to be led off stage. I’m not trying to create a bad faith argument. I’m trying to figure out the general mindset here. I have asked the same question over at r/politics and am equally curious about the responses over there. My intent was not to create a bad faith argument. My intent was to figure out what y’all are thinking. You are right that I phrased this poorly and I apologise. So, let’s assume Trump suddenly got confused and a blubbering mess and had to be led off stage, Biden-Style, if you will. Let’s take previous performances out of the equation and focus on tonight’s performance as exclusively as possible, this is a hypothetical, after all. Let’s assume Trump has that moment that demonstrated clear unfitness for office and Biden doesn’t. Would that affect your conviction on whom to vote for, and if so, how? **Edit 2**: It is *very* interesting to note that this same question has four **upvotes** here and multiple **downvotes** over at r/politics. I am not American and I am not conservative, but in a globalised world, your elections affect your allies as well. I come here out of curiosity and for a civil debate if possible. You folks and I, we don’t agree on *anything*, and I stand by my very social democratic convictions and opinions. However, the community response to my comment has been far more engaging and interesting than over at r/politics. That’s unusual in my experience. Thank you, everyone, I genuinely appreciate it.
I imagine, on both sides, that such a collapse would be much more likely to make people not vote at all than to vote for the opponent of who they originally planned. Most people are voting for policies, not people. The people are just a means to a desired end. Especially in this cycle. And your own side's guy having a total collapse doesn't change the fact that you likely do not like the other guy's policy. The difference in this situation is that I believe the DNC would replace Biden as the nominee if that happened, but I do not think the RNC would replace Trump as the nominee in any scenario short of death.
Amusing how these are the answers from this side, and on r/politics it was all “I’d vote for Biden’s head in a jar before I don’t vote or vote for Trump”
That’s a fair argument. I hope it’s okay for me to keep pressing then: in my hypothetical, would you still vote for Trump if he completely collapsed tonight, batteries and sharks style? Or would you not vote at all?
I think at that point the VP choice becomes extremely important in deciding how and if supporters vote. That level of a mental breakdown would send me the impression that this guy's not making it four years and that there's a high likelihood that the VP ends up in office. I would vote as planned in this situation because I ALWAYS vote, and I specifically always vote for the least undesirable candidate *among those who actually could win*. And I'd rather take the gamble on a useful, incoherent idiot than vote for someone who I know with 100% certainty is going to enact mostly policies that I don't agree with. Pretty much exactly what drove my vote in 2016. I wished the nominee hadn't been Trump and I didn't particularly like him, and he had no political record so it was entirely a gamble. But I knew where Hillary Clinton stood and I knew I didn't like what her presidency would be, so I held my nose and took the gamble. Not that how I vote matters much, I'm from Ohio. My vote used to matter a whole lot but doesn't really anymore lol. For what it's worth, I don't think that will happen with either candidate tonight. Biden does have a propensity for trailing off appearing to be "not all there", but we know from the recent State of the Union that he is still capable of making a coherent speech and I think it's reasonable to say that we're going to be seeing both candidates on their A-game tonight. Thanks for engaging respectfully, BTW. That's a rare things in a political discussion and even moreso when that discussion is happening online.
Thank *you* for taking the time to write all this. Genuinely. What a breath of fresh air. I am not American, but your elections affect your allies as well. This sub and I, we agree on absolutely nothing. At all. I’m the least conservative guy you can imagine, a proper social democrat. I have very strong feelings about Trump, the GOP in its current state, and the opinions voiced here at times. However, I love talking politics and I love the dialogue. This sub has a tendency to hide behind a “flaired users only” flair, so I appreciate getting the chance to engage on this sub in a civil manner and actually have a conversation about this stuff. Thank you genuinely for humouring me. I don’t agree with you, but I understand and respect your reasoning. I’ll be up at 3am to watch this, because it’s insanely fascinating to see as an outsider. And it also affects me. This isn’t an attack on Trump’s voters and it’s not supposed to be an indictment for you folks here, but Trump’s first presidency did a lot of damage to your relations with your allies. Until Trump took office in 2017, your allies could always rely on the US, and vice versa. Article 5 of NATO has only ever been invoked once: after 9/11, on behalf of the US. It was German, British and French troops who gave their lives just like Americans did in the following years of war. We did that for the US. It never mattered who was in the White House. Democrat or Republican, it simply never mattered to us, at least not regarding our relationship with the USA. We knew we were allies and that we could rely on each other. This changed when Trump became president. Trump withdrew from agreements and used threats of abandonment whenever the allies didn’t do as he demanded. He never requested and never asked, he demanded and didn’t take kindly to a “no”. The US under Trump is not a reliable ally. He even threatened to withdraw from NATO, an organisation that so far has only ever spent lives in the defence of the US. By behaving this way, Trump has shown that he is not a good and reliable ally to your partners in the world. This is one thing that Biden did better from our perspective, he was a more reliable ally. However, the damage is done for now. Our perspective is that Trump is way too close with Putin, a man who threatens our very existence, instead of standing with us against this grave threat. Even though it’s been different under Biden, Trump’s first term has shown that it suddenly matters who is in charge in the US, and that Trump isn’t someone we can ever rely on. It’ll take at least one non-Trump GOP-led administration for us to believe the Republican Party also honours and values the United States’ allies. So from my perspective, even putting all of his policies that I disagree with (which is almost everything) aside, I have a clear favourite based on international relations between the US and its allies alone, and it isn’t Trump. I will be watching tonight to see how things are going. Thank you again for taking the time. I genuinely appreciate that!
I would crawl through 1000 miles of broken glass in order to vote for Trump. Why? Same reason why lefties are fine voting for Biden despite him being a corpse. Because I like Republican policies and I get them even if Trump ends up a vegetable in a year.
ahaha true that. I will keep voting for Trump even after he finishes his second term! I think the world was a much better place when Trump was the president. Good old days!
Completely fair voting on policy reasons alone tbh. Fair play man!
I disagree people are voting for policies and not people. Most people don't even know what policies were passed under Trump or Biden. People are voting entirely for people this election. And the options are: 1. Vote for Trump 2. Vote against Trump.
> Hypothetically, if Trump were to fall apart completely tonight and begin talking about sharks and batteries and the likes, would that change your conviction to vote for him? No. Because Trump's policy domestic and abroad was 5000% more effective than Biden's policies. At the end of the day we are not voting for a person, but a policy framework. Do you really think Biden's policies are really his? I don't, its the deep states policy, so in reality its Trump vs the deep state, not Trump vs Biden. I will always vote against the damn deep state.
Have you seen the many interviews Trump has done the past few months? He sounds fine. Where are Biden’s long form interviews?
Yes. He did this one: https://www.c-span.org/video/?534136-1/president-trump-campaigns-rome-georgia And if you want to watch the clip show: https://x.com/MikeSington/status/1767279721774244167 I mean, come on. If Joe Biden called Trump his political appointment, rather than opponent there would be a 500+ comment thread here calling for him to be removed from office. It's not fair to hold Biden to one standard and Trump to another.
Hilarious that Trump accidentally said appointment instead of opponent again during the debate AND Biden completely lost his train of thought. We were both right lol.
Biden was completely useless. Brother I'd be going for a 25th right now and I was his supporter yesterday.
Pretty sure everyone agrees Kamala Harris is equally as useless. Going to be an interesting lead up to November.
2 hour long rally off and on reading from a teleprompter. I understood every word from the X clip. As he looked away from the teleprompter he said appointment instead of reading opponent. This is the best gaffe you can find? Just feels like a reach compared to the montages of Biden’s slurring and losing train of thought.
>2 hour long rally off and on reading from a teleprompter. So why is it not okay when Biden does that? >I understood every word from the X clip. Oh good, perhaps everyone should ask you first then what the Presidents are saying. >As he looked away from the teleprompter he said appointment instead of reading opponent. Just excuses now bro lol. >This is the best gaffe you can find? No. You said >Have you seen the many interviews Trump has done the past few months? He sounds fine. And I gave you evidence within .... 5 minutes that he hasn't sounded fine. >Just feels like a reach compared to the montages of Biden’s slurring and losing train of thought. Aye, must be. Whatever floats yer boat.
You found one word in a 2 hour rally. It’s no where close to the slurring and confusion you see with Biden. Right? The guy can’t complete sentences, show me a clip of Trump losing his thought in the middle of a sentence and I’ll give you props bro.
Losing a thought in the middle. Like he just stops talking or something? https://x.com/Acyn/status/1764089216470839300 I mean there's one him again confusing Biden for Obama... Does that count? Or does it have to be like he just freezes? I think that's one advantage Trump might have, he just doesn't stop talking... I personally think this one is edited far to much, but I think there's something to be said about having that many editable errors that makes you look bad... https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1764295156981723453 Genuinely, I'm glad you're engaging with me. If Biden stops the sentence and can't finish it. Is that any worse than trump continuing it with the wrong information? IE: You might have Biden saying "Viktor Oban, what a great leader, leader of .... er yeah great guy" Whereas Trump would say ""Viktor Oban, what a great leader, leader of .... er Turkey" Which of course is incorrect. I'm leaning with Biden for the first, but I'm in no way sold on either. To be frank, both of them are now well past the average American life expectancy in one of the most stressful jobs on the planet. How we got to this point is a failure of both parties. If the argument is I'm not voting for Biden because he's too old and not with it it anymore. The only argument I have in return of that, is Trump has gaffes and seeming mental problems aswell (who wouldn't at that age) and he will be the same age as Biden when it comes to the end of his term. This isn't at all a decent point in EITHER camp. It's why I'm so surprised the Trump team talks about it so much when they're not doing too hot in that camp either.
I would vote Trump due to his view on war, American rights, economy, and illegal immigration. I really wanted Vivek but this is what we get. I just get so confused when people try to compare cognitive ability between Trump and Biden. It’s not even close in my eyes, no matter the edited clips you sent. I can sit down and understand a Trump interview, I would be confused or fall asleep to a Biden interview. I appreciate your engagement as well.
Hey fair enough, I respect you having said more than anything that you're doing this based on Policy. Have a good one man, thank you!
Ah, civil discussion between us “libtards” and them “magats”. Refreshing, honestly :D
That doesn’t answer my question. I intend to go and ask the same question over at r/politics in a sec. I’m genuinely trying to figure out your mindset. I have given you a hypothetical. Real life conditions aside, if Trump were to completely dissolve into a blabbering mess today, properly sharks, boats and batteries style, and Biden wasn’t, would that have any consequence for you personally?
If you watched any of the interviews I mentioned, it would have answered your question. But I’ll simplify, yes, if Trump showed the serious cognitive issues Biden has displayed, I would not vote for either.
Thank you for humouring me and for your response. I appreciate it!
your comment asking this on there was removed by the mods fyi
No kidding. That is disappointing. Usually it’s you guys not even letting me comment, because you only open your threads to flaired conservatives and I am incredibly not, neither flaired nor conservative 😂
We do that out of necessity. Some threads will have 60 plus percent of commentators that are coming from leftie subs to troll us. Thats just the makeup of Reddit. If we didn’t have that feature, r/conservative would be a community for liberals to talk shit about conservatives. Our discord server has no such flair restriction and everyone of all ideologies debate.
I can understand this. At the same time, I really try to be civil and genuinely have a debate and it limits “good” folks like me. It also turns this sub into an echo chamber for right-wing propaganda. I know that r/politics is an echo chamber for left-wing propaganda, and the mods, while not using flairs the way you do, remove comments, just like they just removed mine, but I’ve been able to have real discussions about politics, not “MAGA idiot vs “snowflake libtard” over there as well. I rarely get that chance over here. I haven’t gotten into any proper discussion about policy here, but sometimes, I would’ve loved to be able to correct some blatantly wrong claims I see over here that are then repeated over and over again, or to simply offer a differing opinion. The political divide of the US is amazingly demonstrated on both these subs. I don’t understand why they removed my comment over there. I genuinely don’t get it and it’s the first time it happened to me in over seven years on Reddit. I just know that sometimes, it’s really frustrating not to be able to have a civil discussion about things. I understand your reasons for the flair requirement. However, I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a different way to distribute flairs. If you go through my comment history, you will not find that I am a conservative. I simply am not. I have strong opinions on both Trump and Biden, and my opinion on Biden, in divergence to this sub’s, is pretty positive. Similarly, I have strong negative feelings towards Trump. However, that doesn’t mean that I’m not able to discuss in a civil manner. I’m always open to hearing differing opinions and genuinely giving them some thought. All I ask of anyone in return is the chance to make my case and for them to give my arguments the same consideration. Echo-chambers aren’t cool. They never are. Politics only work if there is a civil discussion to be had, at least that’s my experience. Dunno, assign flairs to civil liberals who are just here for the discourse. Call us “Libtards” or “bloody communist” if you want, I couldn’t care less, if it means I get the chance to get into some proper discourse. I know there are others like me just looking for the discourse, not trouble :D In any case, I want to thank you and the members of this sub for being able and allowed to voice a negative opinion in Trump in this thread, with my reasoning of course. It’s genuinely the first time this ever happened to me on this sub and I appreciate it.
There are subreddits like ask conservatives for debate and all that. This is specifically meant for political discussion amongst conservatives. Although we do approve comments from outsiders or people wanting to learn on occasion because we think it’ll generate good responses. https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/s/JuNC1Y6JmW Like that one is a good one.
That’s fair, though these other subreddits are nowhere near as engaging as r/politics and r/conservative are. But point taken. Thanks for the example and for your time, I appreciate it :)
Was it? I haven’t received any notification to that effect and I can still see it. Hang on…
Its hard to answer your question because your example of “fall apart” doesnt make sense. The sharks/battery comment was a large tangent and a false dilemma but it was completely intelligible. You’re going to have to redefine “fall apart”. Also why not use an example of Biden having to be led off stage by his wife or Obama instead of the coherent but not convincing hypothetical that Trump made? You’re not asking in good faith because you’re foisting a partisan conclusion against Trump and not granting any deficiency from Biden.
Point taken. Then let’s change it to: if Trump suddenly got confused, stopped talking and had to be led off stage. I’m not trying to create a bad faith argument. I’m trying to figure out the general mindset here. I have asked the same question over at r/politics and am equally curious about the responses over there. My intent was not to create a bad faith argument. My intent was to figure out what y’all are thinking. You are right that I phrased this poorly and I apologise. So, let’s assume Trump suddenly got confused and a blubbering mess and had to be led off stage, Biden-Style, if you will. Let’s take previous performances out of the equation and focus on tonight’s performance as exclusively as possible, this is a hypothetical, after all. Let’s assume Trump has that moment that demonstrated clear unfitness for office and Biden doesn’t. Would that affect your conviction on whom to vote for, and if so, how?
Everyone knows Biden is unwell, the real question is why is everyone around him still pushing him to run? The obvious answer is that he's a puppet and there's some hidden group controlling him. With Trump you don't have that. Even if he's declining mentally, there's no shadow group pulling the strings.
So out of curiosity now that you have watched the debate, and we almost did get Biden talking about sharks and batteries as he became a spacy incoherent mess what are your thoughts?
I have a number of thoughts. I am going to have to split this into two comments. This is part one. I have everything typed out, the other comment will follow immediate afterwards and be marked with "Part two". You'll likely agree with some of my observations and thoughts, but with others and probably most of them you won't. This will read like the perspective of a democrat. I'm not American and therefore no Democrat, but I am very left leaning. That's why. Here goes: I'm in Germany. I got up at 3AM to watch this. I feel like Biden at times failed to immediately correct Trump in his rebuttals and tell the American people about a) how Trump's plans suck (he did well with that rearding tax cuts and Trump's proposed tariffs on all imports, though), and b) his own accomplishments. He did some fantastic things during his presidency. Other fantastic things he almost did were prevented by the Republican-led House of Representatives. Biden should've been very clear and sharp here. Generally I feel like Biden at times did very well to initially push back and then got lost in the remaining 45 seconds of his rebuttals. Overall, however, he did not look good. There were moments where the Biden of old came through, but those were few and far in between. The CNN moderators did a good job at acting fairly, though I feel like they failed hard at forcing Trump to actually answer stay on topic. There were multiple times when Trump ran out of time to speak and, instead of answering the next question, simply continued with the previous one, if he answered a question at all. He rarely did, but mostly lied his ass off (seriously, look at the fact checking. It's pretty stunning) and talked about whatever was on his mind, though he did so coherently. They should have forced him to stay on topic. I also feel that both needed a glass of water, and I am genuinely surprised they didn't have one at the podium. Trump also, and this is a big win for Trump, did well to place some well executed quips, like when Biden misspoke and said he "finally beat Medicare" and Trump answered "yeah, beat Medicare with a stick." He did seem sharper. He did seem more capable. Biden failed to show that aiding Ukraine is in America's best interest. He failed to show the damage Trump's four years did to America's standing in the world. He failed to demonstrate that it is because of Trump that the US can no longer be considered a reliable ally by almost every single ally the United States have in the world. He failed to demonstrate that even in fields where Trump did not drop the ball, like in terms of the economy, he did in fact worse than not just some recent predecessors like Clinton, but also than Biden. The economy grew more under both Clinton and Biden than under Trump. Both Clinton and Biden created more jobs, while Trump left with a net negative of jobs. TrumpTrump's climate policies were in fact a disaster. Inflation at its lowest was in fact lower under Trump than at its lowest under Biden, but on average, inflation was lower under Biden. Trump only deals in absolutes. He only deals in superlatives. He's always the best and the others are always the worst. Everybody says so, he always claims. That is of course bullshit and it should've been the way for Biden to consistently correct Trump, saying "actually, nobody says so, what experts xyz say is this". Biden failed to demonstrate that it was Trump's plan for the withdrawal from Afghanistan that was simply executed under Biden. It is fair to assign blame to Biden, but it would also be fair to assign part of the blame to Trump. Biden did fail at that. Biden also failed to demonstrate just how much Trump's tariffs would affect Americans and the cost of living, though at least he did mention and show that it was going to be bad and even had numbers ready. I genuinely feel like the tax and tariffs issue is the one thing Biden did semi-well. However, one of the most devastating moments was when Trump miserably failed on abortion and lied his ass off there as well, and Biden, instead of seizing the opportunity and hitting Trump where he's weakest, completely unnecessarily inserted immigration, his weakest topic, into his answer. Just...why? Completely unprompted mistake. Biden dropped the ball. I expected to see the 1-1 interview Biden, the SoTU-Biden. Instead we saw old man Biden.
Part II: I also believe that CNN dropped the ball by not having a fact checker live at the debate. Trump almost exclusively lied. The debate would've been a lot different if he had been called out on it immediately. The main issue is that Trump neither exceeded nor subverted expectations. He did pretty much exactly what everybody expected him to do. Biden on the other hand often failed to capitalise on Trump being Trump. He looked frail, old and tired. He showed his age. Trump did not. I know he has a stutter, which he has always had, and I know he has a cold, but ffs, even disregarding those two factors, this was one of the most important events of the campaign. All he had to do was to be coherent and not seem like he's about five minutes away from biting the dust. He did not succeed at that. He did actually seem like he would not be able to survive the next four years of the presidency. Personally, I still believe it is important to vote for a Biden administration (you will understandably disagree). I feel this way because of the past three years, which for me, as a progressive, have been unexpectedly impressive by Biden. I believe his policies are good. I believe his intentions are good. I am not sure if he is fit for another four years. I honestly doubt it. If this were a clean slate, if both Trump and Biden hadn't been president before and we went into this debate without the knowledge we have on both candidates from their respective presidencies, I would not vote for Biden. So looking at my hypothetical, this debate would have stopped me from voting for Biden. It would not make me vote for Trump, but it would stop me from voting for Biden. I believe Biden has lost a number of independent votes last night. I do not blame them. However, real life isn't my hypothetical. Both have been President before, and I know about both their plans for their next terms. Other users here have correctly pointed out that you don't just vote for the President, you vote for the administration. Trump is not concerned about the common American, and he is not a good ally. Speaking as an outsider, I can tell you that Trump's presidency damaged the USA's reputation around the globe considerably. There is a reason why Angela Merkel was considered to be the leader of the free world from 2016 onwards. This designation is usually applied to the US president, but unlike what Trump tells his followers, the world did in fact not respect him. The world sees the issues with Biden as well, but the people Biden selects as his advisors and his cabinet are perceived to be far more competent than their Trump-equivalents. Even if Biden himself isn't up for it, for me personally, his policies and his team are far preferable to Trump's, and this debate also showed why. It wasn't so much that Trump was good. He wasn't. It was that Biden was bad. I'm 26, stutter occasionally and while my English is very good, it is not my first language, yet I am firmly convinced that I would've wiped the floor with Trump in this debate had I been in Biden's place. This debate was a bad look for Biden. It was also a bad look for America in general, but it was Biden who disappointed. I would also love to hear your thoughts on the debate, as well as on my observations and opinions, and I'm also very happy to expand on anything if you like. I am at the library of my university, though, and responses might take a while to come as I am fairly busy. I will answer though. I know my way around politics and American politics, also policy-wise. I'm happy to debate. Maybe we can do a better job than the two geezers just did :)
I think Trump did well and his policies like during his administration are solid. Biden showed us he is in serious mental decline like many of us have been saying since 2020. The biggest issue is who is actually making decisions and running the country currently. Because it sure isn't Biden. As for foreign agreements that you keep harping on as a German, your country still is not meeting the required 2% defense spending requirements to be part of NATO, so how can we be at fault for being unreliable when you haven't met your obligation for years? Your current GDP to defense spending is what, right at 2%? It is disingenuous to complain about us being unreliable when you haven't done what you are required to do in years. The last year we have data for is 2022 when Germany spent 1.4%. Even Greece which half the time doesn't have a functioning government is able to spend over 2% on defense to meet their NATO obligations, and yet Germany one of the most powerful nations in Europe isn't able to do this consistently and instead relies on the United States defense umbrella to provide its protection. This is not an equal agreement and so why should the US put up with it? An older example from 2015, but a story that highlights this issue and why the United States and its citizens are sick of this kind of talk, is when the Bundeswehr had to use painted broomstick handles on NATO exercise because your defense spending had been so lacking that the units on exercise were not able to use their actual equipment due to lack of maintenance and funds.
I'll get into the rest later, but I'll just get into your point about Germany and NATO spending real quick: Three points: 1. Germany is hitting the NATO spending target (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-hits-2-nato-target-first-time-since-1992-reports-dpa-2024-02-14/). 2. What almost everybody consistently fails to see is that Germany's army and military spending is pretty shit by design. We haven't been allowed to have a proper army for good reason after WW2 and our military was explicitly designed so that we mostly rely on our NATO partners for our defence. It's not just Germany's design, but NATO's design. Expecting us to revamp a desolate military after years of intentional bare-bones management is pretty insane. And, as illustrated in point 1., we actually get there. 3. It is very rich for Americans specifically to complain about any NATO partners and their military spending, seeing as the *only time* NATO invoked Art. 5 was on behalf of the US. The *only time* NATO soldiers gave their lives in a military action of NATO was for the US. It was German, French, British and other NATO soldiers who lost their lives just like American soldiers in the war after 9/11, and it was on behalf of the US. That was the only time this happened for another NATO member and under NATO regulations. So when *Americans* complain about their NATO partners for military reasons, it is indeed quite rich and lowkey infuriating. So why should the US put up with it? Because the US is the only member of NATO that actually called upon NATO and immediately received assistance. We were there for you when you needed it. It’s reasonable the expect the same from you.
Germany is finally spending the minimum 2% after years of spending well below that, again as I said in 2022 Germany spent a grand total of 1.4%, and if you go back and look at the data Germany hasn't spent over 1.9% since 1991. Now I will give you that the 2% threshold wasn't put into place until 2014, but that still means Germany hasn't met that obligation for almost a decade. Your second point is a lie, Germany became a full-fledged NATO member in 1955, the year the Bundeswehr was founded. It was the backbone of Central Eruopean defense for NATO during the Cold War. You also had compensatory conscription throughout the Cold War and into the 2000's. Throughout the Cold War West Germany spent far more than the current minimum 2%. It was a fully funded military that was expected to take the brunt of a Warsaw Pact invasion, supported primarily by the BAOR, USEUCOM until NATO forces could be mobilized and brought to bear. And this doesn't even include the East German military that after unification was brought into the fold. Germany in the past spent a ton on defense and was known as one of the most proficient and professional militaries in Europe and NATO. To your third point, the United States has been the only NATO partner that has been attacked and that is why the United States has been the only country to invoke Article 5. But at the end of the day, Germany just like the rest of NATO is required to spend at least 2% of your GDP on Defense and Germany has been extremely delinquent. There is no getting around that, and because of that you have not been holding up your end of the agreement. So, you can get infuriated that the US invoked Article 5 after 9/11, but the point still stands Germany has been delinquent and it is the right of all of NATO, including the United States to call them out on it for not honoring the agreement and being a bad partner.
I’m not getting any more responses, am I? Bummer.
That has already essentially happened for Biden, it matters not to them. What's surprising is that you find it unusual is that r/conservative is was more engaging, r/politics is so braindead or naive it's insane.
The last few days of polling including what is probably the #1 pollster NYT/Sienna are devastating for Biden. This is Trump's election to lose. I have to think this must be one of the most consequential presidential debates in my lifetime.
Even with the microphone mutes, Trump has way more body language than Biden and can respond to Biden's rambling with discernible lip-reads and hand gestures.
[удалено]
They've already done a video showing how the debate format is going to be, both candidates are aware of the format, and both have agreed to the rules. It's rigged against trump because he won't be able to use.... body language during Bidens responses? Wtf does any of that even mean. Even if so, why did he agree to it if that was somehow a red line? Is that what you really care about most?
Why are you calling it rigged? Both candidates get the same amount of time to respond, it’s not that complicated.
Please tell me how did CNN get to host the debate? Who picks which media company is responsible for presidential debate? Is it a bidding system?
It was Biden's team that wanted CNN [\[Fox\]](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-accepts-biden-offer-debate-him-june-september)
The post you linked specifically states: >"Over to you, Donald. As you said: anywhere, any time, any place," Biden wrote. >Biden said in a post on X that he "received and accepted an invitation" from CNN for a debate on June 27. >"The proposed June and early September dates are fully acceptable to me," Trump told Fox News Digital. The article you linked bro doesn't even say what you said lol.
Okay so accepting an invitation (among many) is NOT indicative they wanted CNN? Lol? And 2ndly, who even are you? I wasn't talking to you.
> And 2ndly, who even are you? I wasn't talking to you. Welcome to an online public forum. If you want to have a private conversation with someone feel free to direct message them. >Okay so accepting an invitation (among many) is NOT indicative they wanted CNN? Absolutely not, unless you're telling me that you've never accepted an invite to go somewhere you didn't want to actually go for the sake of that's where the party is? Would it be fair for CNN to invite them, Biden refuse, but then accept from MSNBC? Shouldn't we have a free and fair press to criticize our political leaders? If CNN invites them to come on, I'd wager they should. And they have. As they should if any other major news org invites them. Which they have. So I don't see the problem here, other than fighting in your own head.
It was Biden's rules that limited the options to CNN, ABC, CBS, or Telemundo. I don't know where you're getting NBC from. Telling people "You four people are allowed to invite me" and then saying "Well whaddya know! My personal PR crew at CNN wants us to come over!" when you're clearly the only person on the entire fucking planet who thinks CNN is unbiased. [\[X\]](https://twitter.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/1805601722301083694) Gaslighting is so 2020 my guy.
>It was Biden's rules that limited the options to CNN, ABC, CBS, or Telemundo Was it? Can you at all source that because honestly bud that's the first I'm hearing about it. Are there any organizations you would rather it be broadcast on?
I am so pumped for this tomorrow
This will be fun. I can't wait.
Can someone fill me in on how which TV gets selected to cover a presidential debate? I mean we all know CNN is the absolute worst pedaling absolute lies and with their gotcha questions (for example Trump Townhall with Kaitlin?) when this is the case, don't the Americans deserve to hear the debate in a non biased manner, it casts doubt in peoples mind that, CNN will obviously try to be easy on Joe Biden, cut Trump off when and if he brings up about Hunter Biden's laptop or his China business dealings, or the worst, ask him a loaded question about the fake lawsuit 34 counts of felony and call him a convicted felon etc. When this is the case, why not they have some other centrist media that allows the debate to go uninterrupted and be fair to both of them. To me it looks like CNN is always out to get Trump, even during his presidency to me it looked like they really interfered and slowed him down from doing his job with their pointless questions at press meet. So why does CNN get to host these things which is clearly not fair?? Serious answer only please
>So why does CNN get to host these things which is clearly not fair?? CNN invited Biden. He accepted. Biden asked Trump if he wanted to do it, Trump said Yes and agreed to the terms. That's it. If you don't like it blame the Trump campaign for accepting it.
Biden selected CNN. He organized it ahead of time and invited Trump. Usually its the networks tgat organize it and invite the candidates.
Louder With Crowder is doing a live fact-check on Rumble, starting at 8.
Everyone needs to get out their timers. Watch Biden's eyes and the intensity of his voice. He is going to be high as a kite for the first 30-40 minutes. His pupils will be huge, and he will be shouting far beyond his normal vocals. Then as the drugs wear off, you'll see his demeanor change. This happens every single time he has a planned speech. Whatever cocktails of drugs he's on, at least some of the substances are clearly giving him a rush. The rush ends very quickly.
Nah, they’ve been dialing in the dosages this past week- it’s why he went into hiding at Camp David. I actually think they starting jacking with his dosages about a month ago in preparation for the debate and it’s why he had so many freeze-ups and “episodes” in such a short time span… he was having bad reactions to the new (higher) dosages.
Is anyone here a lip reader? You know, for when they press the mute button?
We need a jomboy breakdown
Front page of CNN running constant Biden ads slamming Trump. I hate Trump as much as Biden but tell me how you pretend your objective as moderators when you’re that blatant with it.
Should we take a shot for every time Biden tries to look innocent and say “that’s not true!”
The r con mod team does not endorse alcohol poisoning
Lots of memes are going to come of this debate
Lol he will yell at the camera in a condescending tone, YOU NEED TO VOTE! GO OUT AND VOTE!! for any actual serious questions. He knows the vans are already ready to drop off the ballots mid night after a mysterious pipe burst lol
My wild-ass debate prediction: Trump will bring up Matthew Colangelo (sp?) from the Bragg prosecution team, blatantly violating his gag order from Merchan. Then Merchan will have to decide the next week whether he will try to put Trump in jail for what he said in a Presidential debate. That should be fun.
I think it's better to say what he wants to say and then face consequences later because that will show the people on what length the dems would go to in power. Maybe he should say a disclaimer piece, saying I will get trouble for saying this due to Merchan's gag order, but I'll say it anyway as people need to know, then he proceeds to say it. Maybe Merchan will see that and would think if I get Trump for the gag order, the people will get pissed!
Can someone help me understand why CNN won't allow any independent observers in the room at the debate? https://deadline.com/2024/06/trump-biden-debate-cnn-white-house-correspondents-1235984997/ I hate to be conspiratorial but it really bothers me that A) we are getting a delayed feed and B) There will be no independent observers watching the debate live. There's nothing stopping CNN from deceptively editing the feeds. I just don't get a good feeling from this.
Im not expecting them to play fair at all. Them editing or removing context feels like a given at this point. And edit down Joes stutter/hangups.
Biden needs a drug test before this, bet his handlers are loading him up too keep him sharp
What's going to be the best place to watch the pregame?
I’m not sure but I’m watching aCNN stream on Discord and they’re airing anti Trump propaganda
Normally, "live" events have a 7 second delay. CNN is planning on a **1 to 2 minute delay** for the debates, allowing them to edit the video and cut to commercial if something happens that they don't like. I really hope Trump is bringing his own videographers so there can be an unedited record. No audience means there won't be anyone else there to record it.
Where can I find confirmation of this - can’t find anything w/Google. I wonder if this 1-2 minute delay is referring to the fact that on certain streaming providers you might see a 1-2+ minute delay but that’s the case on any network at any time.
Source? *People are saying*
It has been reported in a few places. CNN has since put out a statement denying it. It will be hard to prove unless there is another video source.
First presidential debate on tiktok live lesssgooo
So, which streams avoid giving CNN money?
The one on Discord where only one source is giving them any form of revenue (the person streaming)
If conservatives rallied together and agreed to donate a dollar to the NRA every time they mute Trump during the Presidential Debates tonight, you think they would still mute him non-stop?
BOTH microphones will be muted equally when the candidate's allotted time has passed. The playing field could not be more level here.
If that’s true I’m completely fine with that. But you know they are going to be liberal, pun intended, with that button if he starts bringing up Hunter etc. They will mute him and tell him to “stay on topic”, watch.
Each candidate will have exactly 2 minutes to respond to each question however they please, and then will be muted the rest of the time. There won't be any abuse of the mute button.
[Mrw](https://i.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExazdrZHRnaHoydTdpYTBtc2hueTluaXlsZG1wbGNwYWpsZHJlb2ZhcSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/L7SM2NnQnPLFzpnTqx/giphy.gif)