Everyone all excited? Ready for this decisive moment?
Meh. I don’t think it’ll be that big a deal.
This can’t harm Trump in my view – he’s such an entirely known quantity that there’s no zinger Harris can use that will redefine him. On the other hand, huge downside potential for Harris here: she has to pretend that she’s not part of the current Administration while making out that her current office has prepared her to lead. And she needs to make the case that while the Administration has screwed everything up, she can fix it. Add in the fact that she’s not a great debater or public speaker and I don’t see this going too well for her: best she can hope for is to do no harm to herself.
To be sure, the MSM articles lauding her performance are already written…they were, in fact, likely written by the Harris campaign and just handed out to the MSMers so that each “journalist” could tweak it a bit and make it seem unique. There will be the flash polls showing that 90% of Trump voters now want to give her a sloppy kiss. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Polls have been weakening for Harris for about ten days now – and Nate Silver’s forecast shows a good chance of a Trump win. The bottom line is that, at best, Harris is a point or two ahead of Trump in the popular vote polling and is behind in enough Battleground States to get Trump past 270. Its not going well in spite of overwhelmingly positive MSM coverage of her and a massive infusion of campaign cash. But, I guess we’ll see what happens tonight!
Blogs For Victory 
Leaked US Army Documents: Thousands Of Violent Venezuelan Prison Gang Members Run Amok Across America
More and more of that all the time – and the Cat Memes are infuriating the Democrats!
I think we might have them on the run!
I have to admit, Kamala is doing a good job. It’s one blatant lie after another, but her delivery is good, and she has Trump rattled and ticked off.
She did get under Trump’s skin and he didn’t handle it too well a couple of times but I think Kamala got under a lot of Americans skin last night, including mine. Kamala spoke in complete sentences, which has thrilled the Left, and she repeated every lie surrounding Trump at one point or another, BUT she answered absolutely NOTHING. I have no clue what her position is on the border, on illegal immigration, on inflation, on energy, on the economy, on foreign diplomacy, etc. Her “answer” to the economy was too subsidize big home builders to build 3 million homes and then give away $25K to first time home buyers to buy those homes, in addition to giving a “tax credit” to small businesses, which of course is only helpful if they already have the capital, which in this economy, many don’t. But that was it, that was the extent of her economic plan, and that was the only issue where she gave some specifics. And note to Kamala, the economy is not fueled by government subsidies and tax credits.
In the absence of answers, Kamala simply told stories and regurgitated cliches and platitudes, and of course ABC never held her to account. I’ve never seen a POTUS candidate give less specifics this close to an election.
Trump again came across as the moderate candidate on the abortion issue, and rightly held Kamala to account on Afghanistan and Russia. I also loved the way he answered Jan 6 … Kamala had no response back to that. Trump didn’t do well, but he was definitely the only adult in the room.
I’ve never seen anyone lie so seamlessly, so consistently and so shamelessly as I did last night. And this is after years of watching Schiff, Pelosi and Schumer.
I think there is a big risk in lying like this to people who know it is lying. Sure, her hard-core base that only gets its “news” from the AP and The View might not know her lies have been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked, but millions more do know. And now they know she is a stone-cold liar.
Kamala will say anything to anyone to advance her personal agenda. She’s been like that her entire life. Her only guiding principle is advancing her career goals. A good example was the ACLU questionaire she completed agreeing to every far left position possible including government funded sex changes for illegal immigrants. Another good example was the 2020 Democrat primary when she went to the left of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren which didn’t work out, but she tried it, because she will try anything.
By contrast, Trump has been politically consistent his entire life. Go back and watch the 1980 interviews with Oprah. He’s the same man.
She “won” the debate in the only way she could – she didn’t melt down. It took the “moderators” riding to her rescue again and again, but they got the job done: she was out there for 90 minutes and didn’t become a puddle of inert goo like Biden did. Mission Accomplished!
The post-debate chatter was as I expected and the Doomers were out in force on X…but this wasn’t going to move the needle. In the end her rehearsed lines still worked out to a demand we ignore the past 4 years and give her power.
But as the post-debate chatter did its thing and Doomers Doomed…Trump went out to the spin room, people like me started telling everyone to grow a pair and the pushback commenced. Some gave an inch: saying they thought Trump lost the debate but will still win. I went flat out: that it wasn’t a disaster meant it was a win. I noticed that Team Trump was going that route.
This morning the Economist/YouGov poll shows a tie…Harris’ previous lead in this poll completely evaporated.
Trending on X with more than a million posts: “Moderators”.
People see what is happening.
We got this.
Let’s not forget, Kamala made fun of Trump rally supporters last night. And just a reminder, one of them was killed recently due to her negligence. That’s who Kamala is …
So what do you think? Did Kamala wear an ear piece?
https://x.com/defiyantlyfree/status/1833858754791796812?s=61
Question, if it was Kamala Harris who was almost assassinated two months ago, do you think the questions would have been different?? Just FYI, ZERO questions from the media on the attempt to end Trumps life. Not one.
Oh, they did everything they could! Got the “better off 4 years ago” question first…to make sure it was buried.
My bet: massive coordination between Team Harris and ABC on it…up to an including Team Harris actually providing some of the questions to be asked.
Trump went into the lion’s den and emerged, at worst, with a draw – and that means a win.
Talk about spin, LOL. Also, is it Reynolds wrap around your head or generic foil? Why does everything that doesn’t go your way is a grand conspiracy?
They didn’t even have to collude. Anything But Class is so in the bag for any Dem, anywhere, any time, that no one had to wonder if they would give Kammy a tongue bath and try to savage Trump.
Well, what we know of Trump and you all (based on your reaction to the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband), you all would be making jokes about an attempted assassination attempt on Kamala Harris.
As for Trump, where are the medical reports? We know virtually nothing about his injuries or whether his cut was caused by a bullet, glass, or something else. And the reason we don’t know is that Donald Trump doesn’t want us to know. I wonder why.
So the Secret Service is in collusion with Trump now? And Trump is calling the shots? LOL, wow. Good luck selling that one.
The Secret Service is in collusion with Trump? Where do you get that from?
I merely pointed out that there have been absolutely no statements regarding Trump’s injuries or resulting medical conditions. None. From no one other than Trump. And we have a good idea why, don’t we. Had it had been any other candidate, we would have heard from, you know, actual doctors.
You’re such a liar. And a stupid liar, at that. The rest of us saw the doctor interview where he discussed, in technical medical terms, the nature and extent of the bullet wound to Trump’s ear.
Surely there are people somewhere who actually like the stench of your fantasies and Trump hatred, so why are you here?
Well, WE know. Sorry you’re so late to the party. We have reports from the FBI, the Secret Service and his doctor, and we have a photo of a hole in his ear right next to his head with blood running down the side of his face. Glass? Glass from ?????????? Something else? Maybe the other injuries, and the death, were also due to “something else” flying through the air at supersonic speed.
Go beclown yourself somewhere else.
was ooo all upsetty about jokes about Paul Pelosi running around in his underwear with a guy he just picked up? Poor baby. This site is clearly too intense for you.
You guys are huffing so much copium it’s ridiculous. He sucked last night and got his ass handed to him. Brit Hume, Jesse Watters & Bret Baier all said it. It won’t matter because this will still be a close race. You are so cloistered in you right wing bubble that you can’t see reality. That is why Trump fell for the obviously fake eating cats bullshit about Haitians. Which by the way is how violent panics start. It’s not real but because it fits your narrative it must be true.
Eating geese wild geese from a park is weird but not quite eating someone’s pet. The cat lie seems to have started with a neo-Nazi. Good sourcing.
(THIS COMMENT PROVIDED BY THE DNC. I MEAN, FFS: COMING ON TO A LITTLE BLOG JUST TO PUSH SPIN! IMAGINE HOW DESPERATE THEY TRULY ARE!)
Come on, Mark. DNC spin? Do you ever consider that BillBonk45 and others have been commenting here for years and years without needing “spin” to do it?
As for Brit Hume and the rest, I watched Fox right after the debate. Hume hilariously said on Fox News last night, “Not only is she a different person from the person she was in that interview on CNN, but a different person from the absolute dunderhead so many of us thought she was.”
I mean, a dunderhead? It just shows how far down the rabbit hole dear ol’ Brit has gone. The Trump era has eaten your brains. It’s remarkable to see.
Sean Hannity: “The biggest epic fail is the fact that we still don’t know if she supports sex change operations for illegal immigrants. It’s unfathomable to me!” I mean, this is idiotic.
Oh, just for full transparency. I just turned on MSNBC and they’re airing Fox News reacts right after I typed the above. No doubt you will accuse me of spin. lol
Britt was just unburdened by what has been. You must not be familiar with YouTube because I could show you clips of Kamala that makes the “dunderhead” comment seem kind. The woman is an intellectual cul de sac. And I only say I could, because I don’t give a shit what you think.
Kamala simply repeated cliches and platitudes and perpetuated the 4 year old lies about Trump, and seals like you applauded, because that’s your red meat. Voters still have no idea what she stands for, and neither do you.
Brit was unburdened? Uh, no. Brit is under delusions, as are you. But at least you aren’t a television news person. And if Kamala is “an intellectual cul de sac,” what does that make Trump given that she mauled him in the debate? I mean, he got so rattled–making up stuff about people eating pets because he saw it on TV, “concepts of plans,” defending his call for the execution of innocent men, bragging about firing everyone he hired after telling us repeatedly that he only hires the best people–that I expected him to start talking about his dick size.
I mean, I’ve seen stuff on TV, too, but I don’t consider The Twilight Zone to be a documentary.
You do realize that no one ever denied that pets were being eaten, don’t you? Oh, there was the typical Leftist weasel-wording about “no conclusive evidence” and then the mandatory effort to intimidate people who go against the narrative (“imagining things”) but no one actually said it didn’t happen. Because there were too many witnesses. And that guy walking down the sidewalk carrying a dead goose was kind of a clue, too.
You seem quite impressed with Kamala’s skill at lying, and I can see why—she is verrrrry impressive. Not everyone can calmly tell one big lie after another with such confidence and aplomb, knowing that most in the audience will know she is lying.
Sorry you were so disappointed about Trump not talking about his dick size. I get a feeling you really had your hopes up
LOL, you’ve been at the mean girls table for too long if that excited you. Kamala simply regurgitated all the lies spun up about Trump over the last 8 years, which were all left unchallenged by the State Media moderators, and it not only irritated Trump, it irritated tens of millions of normal Americans including independents. Normal Americans expect serious people to address serious issues and Kamala offers nothing. She had no specific answers for any of the bullshit average Americans are putting up with daily, all due to incompetence of the Biden/Harris regime, and they’re tired of it. They want change. Trump is change.
There’s a video out there showing viewer reactions as the debate was live and Trump’s closing got massively popular response from GOPers and Indys…and even Dems weren’t too down on it.
The bottom line – the things that finishes Harris before she even starts – is that everything sucks and she’s been in the Administration that made it all suck. She can’t get around that. She can’t realistically say that she can fix what she broke.
As I’ve been saying all along: she’s not there to win, she’s just there to prevent a downballot massacre. She may still be able to do that…but there’s at least a 25% chance that Trump gets the landslide he was getting against Biden.
Britt was just unburdened by what has been.
You don’t know what I was referencing with this comment do you?
Don’t know why the trolls decided to show here.
But what we’re actually seeing out there is that Trump did well.
The purpose of the debate wasn’t to help Harris – it was to depress GOPers. That’s what the post-debate spin is all about: a psy-op to get GOPers to feel bad.
Rocks Cows must have just fallen out of a coconut tree LOL
You don’t know what I was referencing with this comment do you?
I can’t begin to know what goes on in your head, so feel free to enlighten me.
As for a serious person, do you think Trump demonstrated that he is a serious person last night, getting unhinged and yelling because Kamala Harris said his rallies are boring?
Rocks Cows must have just fallen out of a coconut tree LOL
No coconut trees out here, Bill. Just rocks and cows. But I might have gotten hit in the head by one or two. lol
Trump has been negotiating commercial real estate deals longer than most liberals have been alive, he built a billion dollar resort industry, and raised an impressive and accomplished family, so yes I would say Trump is a serious person.
Don’t know why the trolls decided to show here.
We just enjoy kibitzing about politics with you. That is all. We’re not paid. We don’t get talking points. We’ve exchanged thoughts with you all for years. Sorry if you find that offensive.
Oh, so you call your input “thoughts” now? That’s so precious.
Deluded, but precious. The smell leads us to different descriptions.
Trump has been negotiating commercial real estate deals longer than most liberals have been alive, he built a billion dollar resort industry, and raised an impressive and accomplished family, so yes I would say Trump is a serious person.
He has also been judged legally liable for sexual assault in a court of law. He ran a fake charity that a judge ordered be shut down because it was so self-serving. He operated a fake “university” and had to pay out a $25 million settlement because it was so fraudulent. He’s a convicted felon. (Most convicted felons were also serious about their felonies.) We could go on and on, couldn’t we. He’s currently selling bibles, shoes, cologne and perfume, and pretty much anything he can put his name on.
He’s a serious person in the same sense that a two-bit conman is serious about what he does.
There are certain litmus tests by which we can instantly tell if a person is even remotely credible. Citing the bizarre court case with E. Jean Carroll is one of those tests. Not a single functional human being can believe for a moment that the most recognizable man in New York City at the time would be so desperate he would stalk a marginally attractive woman through the women’s department of a high end department store without being seen by a single person–not even one of those eagle-eyed clerks—-and then force himself on her in a semi-private changing room that probably didn’t even have a door that went all the way to the floor, without once being interrupted by a clerk asking if everything was all right and did anyone need a different size, without making any noise or attracting any attention. As a woman who has shopped in stores like this I know, and every woman knows, those clerks know exactly who is in their department and who took what into the changing area, and that a clerk will pop in without warning about every two minutes.
Carroll admitted she made no noise or cry for help, and didn’t know what time of year it was or even what year it was. But political activists in New York government got a dingbat willing to testify in a salacious-sounding accusation, changed the law to allow charges to be brought years after statutes of limitations had run out, and put on one of their famous Stalinist show trials.
But aside from slurping up this vomitus with such glee, the cow goes on to illustrate toxic Identity Politics with whining about silly, trivial, and possibly false claims that have absolutely nothing to do with the proven ability of Trump to function as a good, competent and successful president. But then people like this don’t DO thinking—-it’s all wallowing in toxic muck, which is their natural habitat.
I think everyone agrees that she put on a very polished and obviously well-rehearsed performance, obediently hitting all the talking points and very effectively pushing Trump’s buttons. He should not have taken the bait, but he did, to his detriment. Sadly, his demeanor detracted from the solid policy statements he made. I don’t think I have ever seen such an accomplished liar. She has the ability to calmly and persuasively say the most blatant lies, and follow them up with even more blatant lies, without even blinking.
I think Brit may be using a word that does not mean what he thinks it means, not if he now believes Kammy is not a dunderhead. That may be the first time anyone has used a four-syllable word to describe her stupidity. She is trainable, she proved that last night, but dumb as a box of hair.
Sorry you were so disappointed about Trump not talking about his dick size.
I said I expected him to start talking about his dick size. This, based on his past behavior. But thanks for trying to misconstrue what I wrote.
I just picked up on your wistful regret.
Not a single functional human being can believe for a moment that the most recognizable man in New York City at the time would be so desperate he would stalk a marginally attractive woman through the women’s department of a high end department store without being seen by a single person–not even one of those eagle-eyed clerks—-and then force himself on her in a semi-private changing room that probably didn’t even have a door that went all the way to the floor, without once being interrupted by a clerk asking if everything was all right and did anyone need a different size, without making any noise or attracting any attention.
And yet a jury of Donald Trump’s peers found him liable for sexual abuse, battery, and defamation. But you weren’t in the courtroom so you know better.
His peers? Seriously? A few handpicked TDS haters are his peers? Yours, maybe. But nice evasion of facts. I didn’t have to be in the courtroom to know what the testimony was, which is obviously more than you know. All you know is the outcome, dumped in your trough along with the other swill you feed on.
political activists in New York government got a dingbat willing to testify in a salacious-sounding accusation, changed the law to allow charges to be brought years after statutes of limitations had run out, and put on one of their famous Stalinist show trials starring a dingbat who admitted that she didn’t even know when this alleged attack took place, but she was pretty sure it did, somewhere, at some time. She didn’t mention why she made absolutely no noise during this “attack” or ever told anyone about it after it was over. She didn’t tell a clerk in the department, or store security, or the police, or a friend, or a relative. In fact, she didn’t tell anyone till the Left needed someone to be their poster child in a vicious smear campaign, and even then couldn’t keep her story straight. Then it was “Will it make me famous? Count me in.”
I just picked up on your wistful regret.
Actually, it was a weak attempt to personally insult me. Why do you always resort to personal attacks here?
I understand that you might be a little embarrassed at revealing that when you think of Trump you think of his dick, but you don’t need to blame me for that.
Maybe it would help if you think of my comments as merely “kibitzing”.
I understand that you might be a little embarrassed at revealing that when you think of Trump you think of his dick, but you don’t need to blame me for that.
And yet you keep bringing it up.
Maybe it would help if you think of my comments as merely “kibitzing”.
I don’t need to make up an interpretation for your comments because your intent was transparent. Anyway, have a good evening!
So typical—-whining about someone commenting on YOUR comment.
And then dragging out that tired old crystal ball to explain how you just KNOW, somehow, the “intent” of someone else.
The cat lie seems to have started with a neo-Nazi. Do you KNOW she was a Democrat, or just guessing?
From the beginning the commentators here have not taken Harris seriously, nor have a lot of other Trump supporters. I get that. I had a hard time taking Trump seriously when he first ran. Turns out she is a lot smarter and a much better politician than you thought. The turning point in the debate was when she talked about the people of his rallies getting bored and leaving early. That triggered him and it was all down hill from there.
Turns out she is a lot smarter and a much better politician than you thought. You just keep telling yourself that. Of course, she has set the bar pretty low. She was very well rehearsed on things to push Trump’s buttons but there is nothing smart about regurgitating a series of blatant lies.
When I first saw Trump I thought he looked awful—sick, or angry, like maybe he had just seen someone key his Lambo or something. Anyway, he started off grim and in a bad mood, and it made him vulnerable to her poking at him and trying to get a rise out of him. Seriously—what other purpose could there have been to snidely say people get bored at his rallies and leave early? And she couldn’t even keep that straight—they were bored, but it was also too hot.
Trump was in a bad mood, because America is in a bad mood. The empty, vacuous husk of a female trying to spread joy only excites the romper room crowd. These are serious times and we need serious people. Democrats do not qualify
No, I’m not buying that. That was true when he was mellow and cheerful in the Biden debate. No, this was personal and it showed. He might have just been tired, he might have had an argument with someone, whatever, but he went into that debate in a bad frame of mind and it made him susceptible to the goading and button-pushing Harris had been programmed to substitute for actual content.
Yes, he was serious, but he presented his seriousness in a belligerent manner and often appeared nearly out of control, emotionally. He can do better. He HAS done better, and he has to keep doing better.
You are so close. He looked awful. Sick. Angry. Tired. In a bad mood. Susceptible to goading. It was too hot for him.
Guys, these are all symptoms of advanced age. Trump is the oldest person even to run for the presidency of the United States.
If he can’t remained focused for ninety minutes—an important ninety minutes at that—without losing focus and his composure, then how do you expect him to conduct the affairs of the country, or meet with world leaders for periods longer than ninety minutes?
Interesting how he aged so much in a few days, because just prior to this he was active, energetic, giving interviews and being the Trump we usually see. these are all symptoms of advanced age and also of being tired, angry about something, not feeling well and/or just being in a bad mood, all emotions felt by people of all ages every day.
It’s so funny how age was never an issue till Biden got kicked out, when it instantaneously became THE issue because suddenly Trump was the only older candidate. Prior to that we were told that Sundowner Joe was “sharp as a tack” and “on his game” and “the best we’ve ever seen him” and age was definitely not a factor.
Trump didn’t “lose his focus” he just focused on what he found more important.
You guys don’t even try to make sense, but then you are just blog vandals and your whole purpose is to toss snot nuggets into a blog where you are not welcome. In all the years you have been so obsessed with this blog, to the extent of constantly inventing new names to sneak back in after being kicked off, you have yet to make a single rational POLITICAL comment, instead merely indulging in what matters to you—superficial, snotty and snide comments about an Invented Other just because it is the political opposition to the tribe you have chosen as your own.
You seem to think that the life goal of merely being the turd in a punch bowl is adequate, and that may be an accurate self-assessment of what you have to offer in general. It’s just annoying to have you constantly dropping your “contributions” into this particular punch bowl.
But then that’s your whole goal, isn’t it?
It’s so funny how age was never an issue till Biden got kicked out, when it instantaneously became THE issue because suddenly Trump was the only older candidate.
You all made age an issue months ago. Trump is the older candidate, and in fact is the oldest person to run for president. Older than the oldest president was when he left office.
If you’re going to make an issue out of Kamala Harris exuding joy and laughing with people and hugging them, then it is absolutely fair to make an issue out of Trump’s age, mood, and apparent exhaustion. You already pointed it out yourself!
Your whole purpose is to toss snot nuggets into a blog where you are not welcome.
Hmmm. Someone chastised me for “dragging out that tired old crystal ball to explain how you just KNOW, somehow, the ‘intent’ of someone else.”
Look, no one is attacking you. Maybe try to extend the same courtesy to others.
Actually. before Biden got Caesared we talked not about the number of years he had racked up (ie: age) but the toll it had taken on his brain. We pointed out the difference between him and his feebleness and loss of what mental acuity he had ever had vs the vitality and energy of Trump, making it clear that we were addressing the obvious condition of dementia and not the number of birthdays involved.
So no. You lie. We never made age an issue months ago.
My comment about the crystal ball was based on your explanation of an “intent” not made clear by the content of what I said. My comment about your motivation of being nothing but a blog vandal was based on objective observation of your posts over the years, none of which ever added to the discourse and all of which were simply gratuitous attacks and negative comments, and the result that they show you as someone who wants to be the turd in the punchbowl–because that is all you ever have been.
I’ve also commented on your efforts to get us to respond to you so you can extend this into a bickerfest, and you are illustrating that perfectly, doing what you always do and zeroing in on a specific word or phrase to quibble about in what certainly appears to be a desire to keep this going.
Sometimes this provides an opportunity to revisit a topic that is worn out, such as Biden’s senility, but in general it is not only very tiresome but supports the theory that your goal is just to get clicks. Whether this constitutes being “paid” or not, it is a reasonable theory given the nature and content of what you post here.
If you’re going to make an issue out of Kamala Harris exuding joy and laughing with people and hugging them, then it is absolutely fair to make an issue out of Trump’s age, mood, and apparent exhaustion. You already pointed it out yourself!
OK, I never tried to make an issue out of Kamala Harris exuding joy because I have never perceived her doing this. I commented on the frantic efforts of the lapdog media and Leftist propaganda machine (sorry for the redundancy there) to use the word “joy” to try to put lipstick on the pig of her wildly erratic, random and irrational cackling by recasting it as merely an expression of great happiness. The skepticism about this has nothing to do with her “laughing WITH people” but of her laughing rather hysterically all by herself, as in the midst of speeches, and certainly not with her “hugging them”. These are two concepts which you have simply introduced where they had never been before, obviously in an effort to shift the perception from that of a middle-aged woman bursting into inappropriate cackling at inappropriate times into a sunny, HAPPINESS, image of normal laughing WITH people, and even hugging them. The effort can be described as “Operation Prove Kamala Isn’t Crazy She’s Just Really Happy”.
I pointed out, because I am objective and fair, that on the evening of September 10 Trump looked tired and grumpy, not his age (see, you lie again!) because at that moment in time this was how he appeared to me. Everyone has moments where they are tired and even grumpy, and not in the mood to put up with a lot of gabbling lying and nonsense, no matter how old they are, and I did not relate this to his age. On the other hand, not everyone has a tendency to erupt into strident spontaneous laughter at times that don’t call for laughter at all, such as during a speech being given as the formal representative of the government.
You have clearly forgotten this, what with your political ADHD and all, but we haven’t. That is that until the DNC got blindsided by Biden’s unexpected endorsement of Harris they, and everyone in the party, were focused on how to get rid of her because she was seen as such a negative there was the fear that she would pull the whole party down. There was never a moment in her vice presidency when she was not seen as a negative. She was handed plum job after plum job, given opportunity after opportunity to gain respect merely by exhibiting even the most basic levels of commitment and competence, and she failed every time. Her staff hated her. She couldn’t even represent the administration in the most basic assignments, like making canned speeches.
It was only after Joe retaliated, in what was a truly inspired example of passive aggression, against being pushed out of the race by publicly endorsing her and therefore making it impossible for the DNC to do what it wanted to do and replace her, that the Media Machine of the Left panicked and went into total rewrite mode, faced with the daunting task of rehabilitating a truly terrible candidate they were suddenly stuck with. That’s when they started a publicity campaign that would have impressed Orwell.
So they pulled a Biden on her and kept her in a virtual basement, away from the public, away from opportunities for spontaneous bursting into one of her infamous word salads, and started a massive all-fronts campaign to present her to us as the best, most EXCITING, candidate ever!!!!!! It’s been weeks now of nonstop “Don’t believe your lying eyes, she’s really great!” publicity. They couldn’t fall back on her accomplishments, because there are none. They couldn’t fall back on her policies, because she either wants to coast on Joe’s or go full-tilt Communist, and Joe’s have been total failures and no Communist policies have ever resulted in anything but economic misery and loss of liberty.
So they went with the one thing associated with her that is not wholly negative—her tendency to burst into odd loud laughter—-and recast this as just being so damned HAPPY all the time we should vote for her because she represents JOY!!!!! They know that there is a hardcore base, like you, which will buy anything they sell, which will slurp down any swill they feed you and smack your lips and rush to sites like this to giddily expound on how darned EXCITED you are about her, so they started tossing out positive emotion-words like “happy” and “excited” and “joy” like they were throwing candy from a parade float. And sure enough, the Usual Suspects did what you/they have been programmed to do, and started parroting “happy” and “excited” all over the place in a veritable explosion of canned enthusiasm diarrhea.
At some point all of you are going to be asked just what about her makes you so EXCITED and you will have to decide if you are going to come out as excited about price controls, which have always resulted in economic disaster, or maybe about leaving living babies uncared for till they die in the sacred name of “reproductive freedom”, or raising taxes on the Productive Class because their productivity results in success (profit). You can all hold hands and dance around her in giddy displays of JOY but fortunately people who actually THINK will be realizing what a brain-dead ditz she is and understand why she is where she is only because (for what I hope were different reasons) some men put her there. (Imagining Joe Biden being motivated by the same thing Willie Brown was is just downright creepy.) Certainly not by merit.
She’s dumb as a brick.
And the only people who thought she did well are dyed in the wool Dems and television news actors.
Sad that Trump got his rear end handed to him by someone so dumb.
After last night, when the average critically thinking, independent or moderate voter begins to emerge from the visceral reaction of who “won” the debate, the picture will start to come into focus. And it’ll be a picture of a news network that constantly tried to fact-check Donald Trump, despite Kamala Harris repeating multiple debunked conspiracy theories, like Trump’s Charlottesville comments, which were already debunked by Snopes, and his “bloodbath” comment, which was used in the context of talking about the auto industry.
When the average critically thinking American looks at the veracity of the lies that Kamala Harris put forth last night – including lies about Trump’s stance on in vitro fertilization, lies about Trump being associated with Project 2025, and lies about Trump not wanting to secure the border – it’s going to be very difficult to look back on this debate as a victory for her.
And God forbid these same moderate voters were looking for an actual policy stance from Kamala Harris.
Despite being well-seasoned in her narrative and her answers and obviously prepared to answer questions she may or may not have received in advance, while benefiting from two friendly moderators and a question format that constantly pinned Trump as the antagonist before David Muir would lead Harris to her answer to reaffirm what the moderators had already decided, she was noticeably devoid of an explanation on her flip-flopping policies. She offered little to no detail on her flip-flops about fracking and her poor performance as border czar, and she failed to take accountability for what happened in Afghanistan, while simultaneously admitting that she approved of how it took place.
Not unlike when she was first crowned the “joy” candidate of the Left, there was a luster to her performance at the debate that is going to wear off very quickly.
Of course, to those on the Left who never look at substance and focus solely on the surface and the superficial, all that matters to you is how Trump LOOKED. What’s funny is how the after-debate analysis is that Trump not only did NOT “get his rear end handed to him” he is actually considered the winner of the event even by many independent, moderate and even some Democrat observers. Of course, these are more serious people impressed by more than schoolyard taunts designed to irritate an opponent and distract from lack of actual content. That latter demographic is well represented by you, casper.
Kamala Harris delivered an impressive performance in the debate with Donald Trump last night—with an emphasis on “performance.” The many hours she spent holed up in a Pittsburgh hotel appeared to pay rhetorical dividends. Surprisingly, she was relatively cogent and articulated coherent statements during an over ninety-minute debut as the Democratic Party’s selected candidate. She was, no doubt, the beneficiary of low expectations.
Since ABC is a propaganda arm of the regime, it was no surprise to see the moderators aid and abet its selected candidate while fact-checking and subtly but effectively disparaging the current challenger.
But Harris’s statements were entirely contrived and full of contradictions with the reality,not only of her own record as a vice president and senator, but with the reality of the American experience of the past several years, at least.
Under favorable and biased conditions, Harris managed to smile and smirk—to an audience faced with alarming and exploitative price inflation, needless and expensive wars, record mass illegal immigration, record fentanyl overdoses, escalating chronic disease, collusion between Big Tech and the federal government, the government’s obeisance to Big Pharma, mandatory vaccinations and their imposed damage to health—to an exhausted American electorate that has lost faith in the political and economic establishment and suffered under its war against the people.
The cynicism of the regime was on full display in Harris’s mien and delivery and the doublespeak and gaslighting were astounding in their audacity. As if the current administration has had nothing to do with the crises that Americans face, Harris, straight-faced, promised relief from everything that the administration has visited upon them, all the while blaming Trump for everything that ails the nation.
The policies of the Biden-Harris administration have not only been an unmitigated disaster; they have ritually humiliated and abused American taxpayers.
From a comment on another online news site: …even women must have been put off by Harris’ in your face Mean Girl/Preachy Woman demeanor – not to mention the bias of the moderators. But I guarantee that only the most ideologically committed beta males were not put off by this.
I have often wondered why ideologically committed beta males insist on posting here. Casper at least keeps his old name but the others constantly change names and IP addresses to sneak back in.
You can’t quote a single thing Harris said.
No, don’t Google it and bother to post it in a response here: you remember nothing from her entirely forgettable performance.
But I’ll bet money you’ve seen the Cat Memes.
You lost, Casper. Your mindless twit candidate lost.
Welcome to Trump II: Electric F*ck All of You.
But Mark, casper doesn’t care about anything Kamala might SAY. She has the team jersey, and besides that she makes him feel EXCITED!
And that’s about as far as his “political” philosophy goes.
“When I first saw Trump I thought he looked awful—sick, or angry, like maybe he had just seen someone key his Lambo or something.”
I’ve been telling your months that he is losing it. What you saw at the debate is who he is now. He’s not going to get any better, in fact he will continue to get worse.
Harris’s comment about his crowds was perfect. It made him angry and threw him off track. It was all down hill from then on.
Yeah, but….for one thing no one pays any attention to anything you say because it is always just warmed-over drivel lifted from sources like Scarborough and The View. (I said sources LIKE SCARBOROUGH AND THE VIEW so don’t bother to say you don’t watch them, specifically. Cows is doing a fine job of bickering and doesn’t need you in here nitpicking.)
Like the rest of what you say, it is totally unrelated to objective fact. For the “months” you have gleefully peddling the adopted narrative that Trump has been “losing it” he has been active and energetic, doing huge rallies in location after location, going to city after city meeting with group after group, on a schedule that would exhaust a man half his age. He speaks off the cuff, at length, and speaks for more than an hour at his rallies. Sometimes he uses a teleprompter, but doesn’t appear to just read it line by line, using it as far as we can tell by watching him as just notes to remind him of his outline of what he wants to say.
The man is 80 and his face reflects his age ((unlike Biden, who had work done to try to make him look younger) and if you choose to define the effects of years as proof of physical exhaustion, well then you just go right ahead and do that. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and while you do what you do, which is skitter along on the superficial, he is out there actually traveling and meeting with people and attending functions and making speeches. So you just fret your fretful little self about whether or not sometimes he looks his chronological age and project your wishful thinking that this means he is “losing it”—no one cares.
What you saw at the debate is who he is now. What we saw at the debate is what we will probably see off and on over the next four and a half years, as there will undoubtedly be other times when he is also irritated, impatient with foolishness and lies, maybe tired, maybe grumpy. In other words, human–while he effectively and successfully handles the most stressful job in the world.
He’s not going to get any better, in fact he will continue to get worse. So now you are a doctor? Or just quoting Dr. Mika? He’s not going to get any younger. In fact he will continue to get older. The great thing about Trump is that, like so many people his age, he still functions in many ways like people far younger.
What is creepy here is your cheerleading for the prospect, which you appear to anticipate with glee, that he WILL “get worse”. The thin facade of kindness and love of fellow man that has allowed the Left to suck in decent people for decades isn’t really very deep, and in the last few years as the Left has become emboldened by its successes it has become so tattered that you people are starting to just toss it aside and let your true ugliness shine through.
Naturally, what impressed you most about this 3-against-1 “debate” was the insult by Harris. I’ll bet it got you very EXCITED.
Super smart and tough guy Trump won so handily on Tuesday he will not accept a second debate with Kamala.
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1834309643340054923/photo/1
Ron Filipkowski asserts that Chicken Trump says he will not accept Kamala Harris’s challenge for a second debate, because he knows how bad she beat his ass last time and he’s a coward who is afraid of strong, intelligent women.
Yet none of this is even remotely relevant to reality. No one “knows how bad she beat his ass last time” but I guarantee that the Dems have been watching the reactions to the debate and realize that another one will move even more Independents and Moderates over to Trump.
And as the debate was not with a “strong, intelligent” woman the ending comment is simply irrelevant.
Very beta cuck move on Trump’s part.
You guys are so funny. Now you’re hijacking the “beta” term and trying to apply it to the team that is criticized for representing too much testosterone. You’ve all picked a lane by default so just stay in it and quit whining. “Dudes for Kamala” was a tryout and we all saw who turned up.
Your guarantee is nonsense, she asked for a second debate. If she feared she was going to lose people she wouldn’t have asked for a second debate. Trump cucked out.
Reuters interviewed ten undecided voters before and after a debate. Six of them shifted toward supporting Trump, three leaned toward Harris, and one remained uncertain. That’s a rather solid outcome for Trump.
“Although the sample size was small, the responses suggested Harris might need to provide more detailed policy proposals to win over voters who have yet to make up their minds,” wrote Reuters.
It gets worse for Kamala.
Five said they found Harris vague during the more than 90-minute debate on how she would improve the U.S. economy and deal with the high cost of living, a top concern for voters.
The encounter was particularly important for Harris, with a weekend New York Times/Siena College opinion poll showing that more than a quarter of likely voters feel they do not know enough about her, in contrast to the well-known Trump.
The Trump converts said they trusted him more on the economy, even though all said they did not like him as a person. They said their personal financial situation had been better when he was president between 2017-2021. Some singled out his proposal to tax foreign imports, although economists say that is likely to raise prices.
Four of those six also said Harris did not convince them she would pursue different economic policies than Democratic President Joe Biden, a Democrat they largely blame for the high cost of living.
“I still don’t know what she is for,” said Mark Kadish, 61, an entrepreneur in Florida. “There was no real meat and bones for her plans.”
Four of the voters are women and six are men; eight are white and two are Black. All have voted for both Democratic and Republican candidates in the past.
Robert Wheeler, 48, a security firm executive in Nevada, was leaning toward Harris before the debate. He now says if the election were held tomorrow he would vote for Trump, largely because he thought Harris didn’t provide clarity on her policies.
“I felt like the whole debate was Kamala Harris telling me why not to vote for Donald Trump instead of why she’s the right candidate,” Wheeler said.
So who would be most threatened by another debate? Given this, the many comments on Kamala’s Mean Girl smirking and goading and the attention paid to the “moderators” who so blatantly rigged the whole thing in her favor they should be ashamed, if capable of shame, another debate would be a massive danger zone for Kamala.
She managed to eat up an hour and a half with fluff, smirks, pushing Trump’s buttons and being bitchy, but she couldn’t get away with that a second time. Now that voters are complaining about what she didn’t address, she would be forced to address this in a second go-round, and she simply cannot do that.
If she feared she was going to lose people she wouldn’t have asked for a second debate.
You fell for that? Well, let’s just see if this whole topic moves on to Trump agreeing to a debate on neutral ground, with honest moderators. Get out of the Complicit Agenda Media playground, stop doing things like appointing a Harris sorority sister as a “moderator” and create an actual level playing field and see how each candidate responds.
Seems pretty clear to me that she didn’t get what she needed out of the debate – the bottom line is that now about 48 hours on, what are we talking about? Is there anything Harris said on Tuesday that is in the public mind at all?
Nothing.
We’ve discussed the moderators – and now rumor is a whistleblower will confirm there was coordination between ABC and the Harris campaign.
We’ve talked endlessly about what Trump said.
And most importantly: the Cat memes are going viral! I mean like wow everyone is posting them. And the best thing here is that a Commie put together a sort of rap video designed to mock Trump on it and its been picked up and turned viral by the Right…and now the Commie is out there whining like a little b*tch that it wasn’t supposed to be pro-Trump! Too bad, comrade: we’ve seized the means of satire and redistributed your product to the MAGA Class!
I love this
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXJd6VbXwAAZnjX?format=jpg&name=large
My “guarantee” was that her team had been checking out the reviews and focus groups. Do you think that is “nonsense”?
The one the most threatened about a second debate is the one who cucked out. Trump!
You like this narrative, it pleases you, it fits into your Identity Politics, so I’m happy that you have found something that comforts you. Between that and your conviction that Harris exudes joy and happiness, it sounds like a very cozy little bubble.
She’s so happy here. So full of joy. So presidential.
https://x.com/i/status/1834322789437689956
https://x.com/i/status/1834320487595548692
Oh, goodie! A comment from the Lincoln Project! Weren’t Joe and Mika commenting?
On Cavuto LOL
https://x.com/i/status/1834331270664552840
Interesting. Not your links, which are just garbage comments from garbage people, but that you find them compelling and can even LOL about them.
I love the theme of “He lost so badly that he only gained support”. It’s still not ahead of “She’s not crazy, she’s just happy” but I’m sure they both play well inside your bubble.
I have a strong feeling this is true. Kamala was fed lines through an ear piece during the debate. Who was feeding her the lines? Also, it’s obvious she knew what the first question should be and had her response down pat … problem is she didn’t answer the question
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13840583/Company-stealth-bluetooth-earrings-issue-verdict-Kamala-Harris-debate-jewelry.html
I’m a little curious about whether the Bluetooth electronics are in the pearl or the gold framework. I wonder because of the attention paid to the photos showing that the gold part of the earring is different, between some that are allegedly what Harris wore (though that is not clear) and the set designed to work via Bluetooth.
That is because the Left always plays this game where they indignantly insist that something simply could not be true because of a detail, trying to distract from the fact that a different detail could support the theory. In this case, it would be completely typical to mount a hysterical defense based on the gold part of the earrings (look! they are different!) while the truth could be that if the electronics are in the pearl the pearl could be mounted on any kind of base.
I am not saying she wore stealth earrings, I am only pointing out a tactic of the Left—like the city manager of a city not Springfield saying he had no “credible accounts” of pets being eaten, ignoring repeated accounts of pets being eaten or just disappearing in the vicinity of the illegal aliens, and never actually saying it never happened. The obedient lapdogs fill in the blanks left by “no credible accounts” and this quickly morphs into “he said it never happened” which becomes “proven false”.
So why do Democrats and RINO’s oppose a bill that would help ensure only American citizens vote??? LOL, that’s a rhetorical question. We all know why
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/09/mike-johnson-withdraws-government-funding-bill-which-includes/
For the same (obvious) reason they fought actual analysis of ballots, demanding that only scanned images be “recounted” because examination of the actual ballots would have revealed things like different paper being used, lack of folds on allegedly mailed-in ballots and the opportunity to scan them for metadata about the printer/copiers.
They couldn’t have cared less about the corruption of our entire electoral system—all they cared about was getting rid of Trump. all they cared about was getting rid of Trump was then proved, over and over again, with the corrupt Stalin-style show trial put on by Cheney et al and then the serial abuse of power in the weaponization of our judicial and law enforcement agencies as seen in the Mar-A-Lago raid and the sequential indictments that required manipulation of the law to even exist, much less go to trial.
Do you think this may be a contributing factor to our societal chaos?? Thank big pharma
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13835837/Common-prescription-drug-taken-tens-millions-linked-five-fold-increase-mental-breakdown.html
If Kamala “won” then why this?
Somebody still has a sad that the pitchfork closed down? such a clever sickburn nick there “billybonker”
hehe
This election is definitely a Parent vs Children election, and Casper and his fellow travelers are certainly showing us the childish side. They think Kamala’s personal insults won the debate, because that’s how they think. Fortunately, there are more parents than children, and Americans realize this is a serious time that requires a serious President. The only reason Kamala wants another debate is because they realize they lost. Kamala spent the time engaging in personal attacks instead of laying our her vision …. and now she wants a redo. Sorry honey, you had a chance and like all Democrats, you failed. CNN knows the score, and everything favors Trump
https://x.com/WarMachineRR/status/1834434746689941661
But…but…but EVERYBODY IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD KNOWS KAMALA WON THE DEBATE!!!!!
Except, obviously, for those who don’t. She is still busing people in to her rallies (busing=one “s”. bussing=two “s”s means “kissing”.) even after sneering at Trump mentioning this.
Imagine a nation where the current president of the United States and the Vice President of the United States walk into a room and people can’t even be bothered to turn and look at them. Because that is our country today. The frantic press, reminding me of nothing more than that annoying wind-up monkey pounding cymbals, is doing everything it can to convince us that we love Kamala, we really really do, while in real life people don’t even acknowledge her walking into a room. Even when accompanied by the president.
And then there is this. https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/harris-crowd-bus-trump
It is also nothing to get government employees to show…there is no organic enthusiasm for Harris.
Between government employees and union people, all of whom can be instructed to show up and promised they will still be on the clock so they will be paid, and this is basically her base. This and dingbat college girls who could never make it through metal detectors…..and casper, whose alter ego I suspect is as a college age girl who could never make it through a metal detector
there is no organic enthusiasm for Harris.
Several million will vote for her, but only because she is a D and she is Not Trump. As for real enthusiasm, I don’t see it and never have, in spite of the frantic tooling up of the media apparatus to inform us that we never thought she was a loser, never disliked her, never thought she was nothing but an anchor tied to the party that would drag it down, never found her incompetent, never found her unlikable, and—most important—-NEVER VOTED FOR HER.
Matt Walsh is hilarious … he absolutely humiliates Beverly DiAngelo
She claims that the movie is “designed to humiliate and discredit anti-racist educators and activists.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13846887/white-fragility-author-robin-diangelo-matt-walsh-embarrassing-video.html
She’s smarter than she looks. The thing is, these people make it so easy………..
I want Matt Walsh to moderate a debate. And Michael Knowles.
And Tucker
?????????????????
I think Tucker has apparently gone off the rails a couple of times, but I am not nearly ready to dismiss him. One thing I have always liked about him has been his daring to tweak the Powers That Be, and when some of those Powers are on our side I think there is nothing wrong with tweaking them, too. I might think he has presented people or ideas I think are seriously wrong, but I will not make what I think would be the mistake of assuming that because he facilitates the presentation of something with which I strenuously disagree he is advocating for it.
His history has been too consistently pro-Constitution, anti-Leftist, to believe he has now flipped to the Dark Side. It seems more likely to me that he is stirring the pot, acting as an agitator to both reveal the other side and force us to evaluate it and our responses.
(Only slightly related but it came to mind: I recently read a post by a guy who said that he used to go on social media to ask for advice on how to address a problem and then discovered that if he posed his problem and then came back under a different name and offered a suggestion that was obviously very wrong, he would get a flood of responses to counter the wrong advice, a lot more than he ever got when he just asked for advice himself. It took the impetus of objecting to the wrong information to get people involved enough to contradict it with the correct information. And I wonder if the same kind of thing might be going on with Tucker—-it’s one thing to say over the years “This is right” but then maybe this needs a kick in the butt by saying something very wrong to get people to analyze it and respond to it, to reinforce the original beliefs by presenting contradictions to them to force closer examinations of them and commitment to them. Not necessarily a defense, just a consideration.)
GREAT article … Trump is on his way to a landslide victory
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/09/ingrassia-president-trump-handily-beat-kamala-harris-their/
We need to pay more attention to Tim Walz. I don’t mean casual snark about “Tampon Tim” but seriously studying the man himself and then that he was the one Harris felt most reliably compatible with her own ideology. That’s important. The more I see and hear of him, the more I realize that his choice was not due to fear of backlash against a Jewish candidate but because she was drawn to a man who reflects her own true political ideology and agenda.
Linking Harris to Biden and his administration is fine, good and important, illustrating her past. But linking her to Walz will illustrate her desired future at least as well if not better than studying what she herself says. Walz’s own account also illustrates, quite vividly, the special treatment the Left gives to elites, something we fail to emphasize. Those of us interested in history have vivid images of elites in limousines being driven to their weekend dachas past lines of proles waiting to buy whatever is being sold at the head of the line, getting in any line because no matter what is being sold it is necessary and in short supply. But for the last two or three generations this image simply does not exist because it has been erased by the Agenda Media.
Walz has not changed his opinion of the supremacy of Chinese-style communism. He continued to visit China on many occasions and honeymooned there after getting married on the anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square. He praised the idea of everyone living in the same kind of housing (while he, as an elite, did not) that is provided by the government and the employer (who, under Communist rule, is probably the State).
This “equality” is something never described to Americans. We are used to, and demand, variety and the opportunity of choice. The concept of being given one brand of toothpaste, one kind of car in one available color, being expected to eat the same common foods as everyone else and having it doled out by the State, etc. would never be accepted by Americans. Yet it is the political end game of Communism. This is usually just an abstraction, but Walz portrays the reality pretty clearly, from the gritty reality of “equality” to the special treatment of elites.
Walz has evidently been active in encouraging American students to appreciate and possibly adopt Communism.
After returning to the United States in the early 1990s, Walz started leading trips to China for American high school students, with support from the Chinese government. The trips were “arranged by a friend of Walz in China’s foreign affairs department,” the Star-Herald reported at the time. The Chinese government also provided some of the funding for the program, according to a 1993 article in the Star-Herald.
……………………
Walz has more recently promoted U.S. cooperation with China, saying in 2016 that he doesn’t believe “that China necessarily needs to be [in] an adversarial relationship” with the United States. In another video unearthed by Republicans, Walz said he is “pretty friendly with China.”
………………………..
House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer (R., Ky.) wrote in a letter to FBI director Christopher Wray that he is investigating Walz’s “longstanding connections to [Chinese Communist Party]-connected entities and officials.” Comer said Walz could be “susceptible to the Party’s strategy of elite capture, which seeks to co-opt influential figures.”
The only explanation for the number of visits he’s made is that he’s purchased by the PRC.
Well, according to a blog vandal it could just be that he has made sooooo many very very good friends in China, and enjoys their vast esteem for him that is totally untainted by any pressure from their government to groom him.
I understand that the Cambridge Five all reveled in the pure love and admiration they received from their new Soviet friends, none of which had the slightest ulterior motives but just appreciation for their charm and wit.
Gosh, that’s so sinister. In a 1990 Alliance Times-Herald article, it also says, “Walz feels the Chinese have been mistreated and cheated by their government for years.” But he did also talk about how he was treated personally by individual Chinese people that he encountered. But it’s probably impossible for you to believe that people living in an oppressive regime could also show kindness to strangers.
You know, I’ll bet that stuff they sell on the interweb for polishing headlights might clear up some of the distortion on your crystal ball. Of course, that might mean you wouldn’t have an excuse to keep on ‘explaining” what I think and why I think it, and that would be such a loss to us all. ( //sarc off)
I actually believe that people living in oppressive regimes are not only capable of showing kindness to strangers, they—living under oppression—might feel more inclined to reach out with kindness to others, But this observation has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Nothing. Not a word, not a syllable, not even a hint of an implied motive, not even a penumbra of emanations of a suggestion. Didn’t happen. So you can take your faux outrage and sad little effort to insult me and put them where your other “thoughts” originate, to let them all marinate in their silliness and falsity.
I quite clearly wrote of the official treatment of Tim Walz by the government in China. By the Communist Party in China, which IS the government of China. HE failed to try to separate the social things that impressed him so much from the official treatment he got, which means that it might have been spontaneously generated goodwill from kind individuals but it might also have been part of the overall efforts by the CCP to impress him, make him happy, and encourage him to promote them and their form of government in the future. He didn’t make that distinction, which I understand because it is much more flattering to think “Wow, these people really like me” than it would be to admit “These people are following orders to keep me in line with their government’s agenda by making a fuss over me”. I might think the former to be pretty naive, given the history and nature of the Communist Party, but I wouldn’t blame him for letting ego overcome rational skepticism. And for all I know he had genuine warm relationships with many of these people. Certainly there is no PROOF that the gift of a poem by “the widow of Communist Party-allied revolutionary leader Sun Yat-sen” had no political motivation or connection.
Which is why I made no such distinction myself. Or implication. Or claim. All I did was use the man’s own words to describe his own experiences. In the quotation I provided he did not specify that these gifts were from people with whom he had developed personal relationships. In his own words, the references were still in the context of his official treatment by the government. I didn’t editorialize. I let his own choice of words and context speak for themselves.
So what did Walz say? “In China, Walz said he received a salary that was double the pay of Chinese teachers” which I did not assume was due to personal relationships developed with people he “encountered” and also that he “was given a decorated apartment with a color TV” also presumed to be part of his compensation from the government, especially as he also “had the only air-conditioned residence on campus.” So, up to this point in his own accounting of his experience he is referencing benefits received not due to personal friendships or the generosity of strangers but as part of his compensation from the government for his position. When he says “He said he was also thrown parties on his birthday and Christmas” it is within the context of his other official compensation, not differentiated as part of personal friendships separate from the official treatment. His own use of the word “also” links the parties with the official treatment.
He goes on to say “They gave me more gifts than I could bring home. It was an excellent experience.” without identifying “they” but in context it is reasonable to assume “they” were the same people treating him like minor royalty as part of his position, at the invitation of the government and sponsored by the government and paid for by the government. Whether all this attention was simply “kindness to a stranger” or part of a program of impressing a visitor is mere conjecture on anyone’s part. I personally lean toward the idea that it was all part of a policy of impressing a foreign visitor but I admit part of this is based on my knowledge of other oppressive regimes courting the good opinions of others deemed to be influential. But I didn’t say that or editorialize about it.
But the thing is, neither of these possible spins on the motives of THESE people as they interacted with THIS person has anything at all to do with your whining assertion that I expressed a general belief that “it’s probably impossible for (me) to believe that people living in an oppressive regime could also show kindness to strangers.”
Those little blue letters at the beginning of my post will lead you to the article referenced in the highlighted part of my post, so if you bothered to read it you could see that I was not offering an opinion that I could not “believe that people living in an oppressive regime could also show kindness to strangers” because I was not using my own words or inserting my own interpretation.
Which means that what matters to you is the ability to post lies and insults here based misstating what I said—which is a way of lying. Which means you are a liar.
No crystal ball needed here.
But thank you for the opportunity to revisit Walz’s deep connections with and love of Chinese Communist governance. (You do realize your posts are being used this way, don’t you?)
I actually believe that people living in oppressive regimes are not only capable of showing kindness to strangers, they—living under oppression—might feel more inclined to reach out with kindness to others.
Well, congratulations for having the capacity to recognize that people can show kindness.
But this observation has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Of course it does. I read the original Alliance Times-Herald articles, and it’s clear he was talking about the people he met while in China—his students and strangers he met along the way. But you turn it into some nefarious plot in which every possible interaction was controlled by the Chinese government.
Then why don’t you get all snarly about the original article instead of attributing something to me? I didn’t “turn it into” anything. I used his exact words from his exact article and you are the one who was compelled to twist it into something never said by me. And, BTW, what was never said by the article.
He never said a word in that article, overtly or by implication, that “strangers he met along the way” threw him parties and gave him so many gifts he couldn’t bring them all back with him. What he did say was that these things happened, and his account put them in the context of the other special treatment he got from the government—which he acknowledged was special treatment. He did not say, at least in that article, that the parties and gifts were from people he met outside the university, or “along the way”. But then to understand this would require a higher level of reading comprehension than you evidently possess, or at least care to exert—or at least the intellectual honesty to admit what he said when you would rather twist it to attack me.
You go right ahead and believe that the CCP treated this guy so much better than they do their own people without having an ulterior motive if that’s what it takes to make you happy. You go right ahead and believe that relative strangers lavished gifts on this “white monkey” though he was clearly above them in status and wealth, just because they liked him so much, if that’s what it takes to make you happy. I’ll bet in a prior life you were a big Walter Duranty fan and irritated at the “nefarious plots” others saw in the actions of Stalin.
I don’t care, because few if any things matter less to me than what you think of me. I only go to the trouble of addressing your lies because you open the door to revisiting devastating information about the true nature of the pair trying to gain power in this country and some things need to be repeated. And, of course, to revisit reasons that you have been kicked off the blog so many times in the past and probably will be again when the moderators get tired of your dishonest antics now that you have given up your fleeting and feeble efforts to pretend you are trying to engage in political discourse and are back to your sour old habits of insults and attacks.
In the meantime just quit coming here and lying, and making up crap to attack me or anyone here.
He never said a word in that article, overtly or by implication, that “strangers he met along the way” threw him parties and gave him so many gifts he couldn’t bring them all back with him.
I didn’t say the articles said strangers threw him parties. I said the articles talked about how he was treated personally by individual Chinese people that he encountered, and that he referred to his students and the strangers he met along the way. To whit:
“No matter where he went if he stopped and seemed bewildered someone would ask if he needed help.” In other words, strangers, as indicated overtly and by implication.
“Although the Chinese do not celebrate Christmas, some students and other friends cut a pine tree, decorated it and brought it his room on Dec. 24, he said. They also threw a big party for him on his birthday.” Students.
Then why don’t you get all snarly about the original article instead of attributing something to me?
Don’t need to. It’s the twisting of the original articles, which I have access to, by the Free Beacon—not exactly an objective source—that is objectionable.
That’s not what you said. You said (to me directly) But it’s probably impossible for you to believe that people living in an oppressive regime could also show kindness to strangers.
You are so inherently dishonest that you simply lie, and then have to weasel your way out of it. I posted a quote by Walz: You responded to my quoting of those comments by Walz by attacking me personally. I called you out on it. You doubled down on your lie. I called you out on it again and now you have a completely different story, about a completely different article I never cited or quoted.
This is why you are not welcome here. You are just inherently dishonest and not a nice person and you admit you only come here to make negative comments on what serious people post and want to discuss. You have never made a positive contribution to the blog and are just annoying and offensive, which appear to be your goals. And you’re a sneak.