Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[sugilite:Me]

OK, big breath time. I disappeared yesterday as the IT project I'm working on bloody turned to custard when my production environment reacted completely differently from my cloned test environment. WTF

So my time has become severely limited. Which made me think about how to deal with your posting style. So from now on, if you would like to converse with me as you say you like to do - For the sake of my and other forum members sanity, I'm suggesting we debate one single subject at a time - no more multi fronted debates, as from my point of view, there becomes to many fronts of what I consider at least 40% to be deliberate misdirection - and I simply cannot keep up with the constant fact checking. Fair enough?

So lets start with my yesterdays bugbear of your sneaky straw man/misdirection response quoted further down below.
Your "joke" has no relevance to the conversation. If the discussion was on policy implementation within the party itself, it would - as you well know.
As the question directly pertains to communicating and explaining the policies to potential voters so they understand what said policy is. That extends to actual details about said policy such as what it is, how it is put together, how it will benefit the people, how it is better than the policy it seeks to replace and how and when it will be implemented.
As mentioned, I sincerely believe David Seymour is the gold standard at doing this. So I ask again, and I would appreciate a sincere response - With Seymour being a 10, where does trump sit on that scale for you in communicating and explaining the policies he and his party plan to implement? So your score out of 10 for trump is????

Once we have hashed this one out, you can pick the next single trump subject for us to debate.

Just one more comment. When it comes to arguing/debating, if ones position does become untenable, it is actually quite liberating to just stand back and admit that ones position has become such. As against for instance avoiding the question with a dose of deliberate misdirection through "questionable" humor. Just some food for thought?

Trying to butter me up with Seymour - nice try

I will answer your question in the form of a Military Joke:

A New Lieutenant is being interviewed about what it means to command. In the interview panel, the lieutenant is asked how he would raise the flag pole on the parade square.

The Lieutenant pauses for a moment, before confidently answering about where the flag pole is stored, the hinge, the flag pin, the rope he would use etc. etc.

After he finishes, he waits for the board to accept his answer. To his disappointment, the board unanimously says that is the wrong answer. Confused, the Lieutenant asks the Colonel on the board how he should have answered it.

The Colonel pauses, buzzes the door and calls in the Sargeant.

‘Sergeant, get that pole raised, I’ll check back in with you later‘

Trump is very much this style of leader (in my opinion) - he dictates where he wants to go, then lets his staff work out how to get there. Whereas Seymour is an Engineer and so outlines each variable and how it will be accounted for.

I like both.

[sugilite:Me]

That was Shipley. When this was discussed on TV she was asked what if the former mental patients committed crimes. She replied that was a matter for the Police.
Which is of no help to people murdered by mental patients and yes, that has happened here.

Cheers Pritch, ahhhh - if course it was Shitlley. I well remember her "going on the benefit for a week" stunt to show that the dole was enough to live on. Never mind that all her utility bills were all paid up , and her fridge and pantry already full of food which she clearly enjoyed
In a way she mirrored a lot of how trump operates. <==== On topic

I will mention again though, it was constant under funding from both national and labour that so many psych hospitals became so run down they became unsustainable. Fucking politicians constantly kicking cans down roads.
They should of homed all the ejected patients in the beehive and had them getting their daily meals at bellamys. Bet we would have seen some robust mental health funding come about in pretty short order under that scenario!

[TheDemonLord]

OK, big breath time. I disappeared yesterday as the IT project I'm working on bloody turned to custard when my production environment reacted completely differently from my cloned test environment. WTF

Them feels. I feel that deep in my soul. It is the absolute worst.

So my time has become severely limited. Which made me think about how to deal with your posting style. So from now on, if you would like to converse with me as you say you like to do - For the sake of my and other forum members sanity, I'm suggesting we debate one single subject at a time - no more multi fronted debates, as from my point of view, there becomes to many fronts of what I consider at least 40% to be deliberate misdirection - and I simply cannot keep up with the constant fact checking. Fair enough?

Fair.

So lets start with my yesterdays bugbear of your sneaky straw man/misdirection response quoted further down below.
Your "joke" has no relevance to the conversation. If the discussion was on policy implementation within the party itself, it would - as you well know.
As the question directly pertains to communicating and explaining the policies to potential voters so they understand what said policy is. That extends to actual details about said policy such as what it is, how it is put together, how it will benefit the people, how it is better than the policy it seeks to replace and how and when it will be implemented.
As mentioned, I sincerely believe David Seymour is the gold standard at doing this. So I ask again, and I would appreciate a sincere response - With Seymour being a 10, where does trump sit on that scale for you in communicating and explaining the policies he and his party plan to implement? So your score out of 10 for trump is????

Okay - I say this as a fan of both Seymour and Trump. Trump does not seem to me to operate in that manner. It is like comparing an Army Sniper and an Texas redneck about how they can shoot a target 400 metres away.

The Sniper (Seymour) - will tell you about the Wind, the Humidity, distance, elevation etc. etc. and hit the target.
The Texan (Trump) - will just say 'Well, I just hit it'.

You are asking me to rate Trump on a scale of how well he can articulate all the variables, but I rate Trump on whether or not he hits the target.

As such - your challenge is a non-starter for me - I trust Trumps gut instinct - call it faith if you want. It is not avoidance per se - look, if it will make you happy:

Compared to how Seymour articulates his policies, Trump is not even in the same league.

But to put that comment in perspective - when it comes to statesmen-like speeches, Obama was clearly better than Trump... Yet I still like Trumps style of speaking (it is really easy to parody, I mean it is one of the easiest - and perhaps greatest speech patterns to parody ever, you know - my friend, said to me once - This way you speak it....).

If that is a key consideration for you - fair enough, it is not a key consideration for me.

Just one more comment. When it comes to arguing/debating, if ones position does become untenable, it is actually quite liberating to just stand back and admit that ones position has become such. As against for instance avoiding the question with a dose of deliberate misdirection through "questionable" humor. Just some food for thought?

I still thought it was a good joke - and highlighted the difference of leadership styles.

[Pursang]

[sugilite:Me]

I can only take from your analogies and apparent rating of "0" that trump is hopeless at communicating policies to potential voters - as actually hitting the target would comprise of having well informed potential voters at the end of said speech.
Furthermore, you are more than happy with a party leader not having the ability to articulate policies in any meaningful form. I assume you apply this low bar to all political leaders of every flavor when analyzing their performances?
I find this a very surprising position for you to take.
Personally, I prefer leaders to have the ability to communicate clearly, rather than an uninformative mess of grievance driven whining and rants.

Okay - I say this as a fan of both Seymour and Trump. Trump does not seem to me to operate in that manner. It is like comparing an Army Sniper and an Texas redneck about how they can shoot a target 400 metres away.

The Sniper (Seymour) - will tell you about the Wind, the Humidity, distance, elevation etc. etc. and hit the target.
The Texan (Trump) - will just say 'Well, I just hit it'.

You are asking me to rate Trump on a scale of how well he can articulate all the variables, but I rate Trump on whether or not he hits the target.

As such - your challenge is a non-starter for me - I trust Trumps gut instinct - call it faith if you want. It is not avoidance per se - look, if it will make you happy:

Compared to how Seymour articulates his policies, Trump is not even in the same league.

But to put that comment in perspective - when it comes to statesmen-like speeches, Obama was clearly better than Trump... Yet I still like Trumps style of speaking (it is really easy to parody, I mean it is one of the easiest - and perhaps greatest speech patterns to parody ever, you know - my friend, said to me once - This way you speak it....).

If that is a key consideration for you - fair enough, it is not a key consideration for me.



I still thought it was a good joke - and highlighted the difference of leadership styles.

[TheDemonLord]

I can only take from your analogies and apparent rating of "0" that trump is hopeless at communicating policies to potential voters - as actually hitting the target would comprise of having well informed potential voters at the end of said speech.

Now we get into the nuance - I know the over-arching narrative, if you will, in terms of policy from Trump:

Southern Border, Law and Order, Lower regulation, reducing the size of the Federal Government, less overseas conflict, reigning in CHI-NAH etc.

Broad brush strokes.

Furthermore, you are more than happy with a party leader not having the ability to articulate policies in any meaningful form. I assume you apply this low bar to all political leaders of every flavor when analyzing their performances?
I find this a very surprising position for you to take.

So, let me compare the former Conservative Government in the UK vs Trump to highlight why this is not as critical.

Every Conservative Government for the last 10 or so years had very long and well detailed policies on how they were going to stop or curtail illegal migration. And yet there was never any meaningful change.

Trump makes some bombastic claim that he is going to defeat ISIS in a few months - and lo and behold, The Middle East settled down and seemed to behave under his premiership.

This is what I mean by he seems to operate on gut instinct - and for me, at key points when I think about actions he took and the net result of them, My life and the world seemed to be better for it.

And so from that perspective - sure I give Trump leeway that I dont give other Politicians - I said as much in the previous post that you could call it Faith if you like.

Do I know exactly how he is going to accomplish this - No. Do I think *he* knows exactly how he is going to accomplish this - also, No.

But like that Texas farm kid - I trust him to nail the target.

Probably not the robust philosophical defense you were expecting - but its the truth. My life was better when Trump was in power, the world had less war when Trump was in power.

Personally, I prefer leaders to have the ability to communicate clearly, rather than an uninformative mess of grievance driven whining and rants.

I cannot find the quote currently - I have probably used it previously in this thread - but it was from JBP - it is something like:

Trumps bombastic exagerations are more palatible than Hilarys carefully crafted attempts to manipulate.

That is - the uninformative mess of grievance is more sincere and genuine than faked empathy.

[sugilite:Me]

Now we get into the nuance - I know the over-arching narrative, if you will, in terms of policy from Trump:

Southern Border, Law and Order, Lower regulation, reducing the size of the Federal Government, less overseas conflict, reigning in CHI-NAH etc.

Broad brush strokes.

Sure, You know the policies, but trump is there to explain these policies to swing voters, or previously dem voters who are considering voting for trump - you know the votes he actually needs on top of his preordained orange chinned base voters.
Trumps not just there for your left triggering enjoyment pal

Probably not the robust philosophical defense you were expecting - but its the truth. My life was better when Trump was in power, the world had less war when Trump was in power.

I believe in fair and balanced principles for all leaders to be judged against, I don't have a separate bunch of rules for...shall we charitably say "a special needs" president.

Trumps bombastic exagerations are more palatible than Hilarys carefully crafted attempts to manipulate.

That is - the uninformative mess of grievance is more sincere and genuine than faked empathy.

If this paragraph is still related to articulating policy, trump never gets far past the title and maybe a sentence about how it is somehow going to be the bestist most beautiful policy ever. That is a pile of steaming bullshit. At least with harris's pile of steaming bullshit you will get a much better of idea about said policy. As in, those elusive swing voters can go "hey I like that policy", I'm voting for harris, as opposed to "I don't understand what the fuck trump just said, what a bunch of bombastic waffle" and they then go online searching the net for some of that cool harris/whatshisname camo hats - Wahooo! (as i know you don't go to fox, apparently magas thought they owned the trademark for camo hats, it was hilarious!)

Hey don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy for trump to keep putting off those elusive swing voters due to grievance whining and ranting that you appear to market as "bombastic". Even if it is going to cost me the price of a stiff drink once the votes are tallied

Looking at our writings, I don't think we are going to move each others needles in a meaningful way from here.

If you too deem that to be the case, it looks like you are pitching and I'm batting now - take your best shot!

[F5 Dave]

I used to tell a joke as a fairly unsophisticated teenager.
The general concept was about a bloke who went hunting bears to Prove Himself. but was a terrible shot and the bear did beastly things to his bottom. But he kept coming back with more weapons. This time.

The punchline was the Bear saying " you don't just come here for the shooting do you?"

TDL is that guy.

[TheDemonLord]

Sure, You know the policies, but trump is there to explain these policies to swing voters, or previously dem voters who are considering voting for trump - you know the votes he actually needs on top of his preordained orange chinned base voters.
Trumps not just there for your left triggering enjoyment pal

Are you saying that the other voters arent as smart or as sophisticated as me - Why Sugi, such flattery

I think that most voters have a good idea of what Trump. The question for the voter is those that dislike his personality, but liked the country when he ran it - can they look past that?

I think with the assassination attempt, many can.

Case in point - a lot of British commentators who are put-off by Trump being Trump (typical loud obnoxious yankee that the Brits don't like) - saw the reaction to being shot and found him to be admirable.

I have no idea how I would react to being shot. Would I have the prescence of mind to stand up defiantly - I would like to think so - but it's the kind of thing no one knows for sure until it happens.

I believe in fair and balanced principles for all leaders to be judged against, I don't have a separate bunch of rules for...shall we charitably say "a special needs" president.

Yes and No - If you had a person you worked with who you felt consistently gave you positive results - and then they asked you to trust them on something - would you subject them to the same scrutiny as a random person or the same scrutiny as someone who you felt consistently failed to deliver?

If this paragraph is still related to articulating policy, trump never gets far past the title and maybe a sentence about how it is somehow going to be the bestist most beautiful policy ever. That is a pile of steaming bullshit. At least with harris's pile of steaming bullshit you will get a much better of idea about said policy. As in, those elusive swing voters can go "hey I like that policy", I'm voting for harris, as opposed to "I don't understand what the fuck trump just said, what a bunch of bombastic waffle" and they then go online searching the net for some of that cool harris/whatshisname camo hats - Wahooo! (as i know you don't go to fox, apparently magas thought they owned the trademark for camo hats, it was hilarious!)

Obligatory - I am not Trumps campaign manager (I know, I know - shocking) - If I were - I would not be touching policy at all.

I would be asking the Voters if they want 4 years of how life was 2016 to before Covid, or if they want 4 more years of Inflation, Energy price hikes, Global conflicts etc.

I would point to each one of Kamalas campaign promises of what she plans to do when in office.... Then point out she is currently in Office and given Biden being mentally AWOL - is the person in charge, then ask why she hasn't made good on any of them yet.

That said - I wouldn't have picked Vance. I would have picked Tulsi. Not because of my undying love for that Lady, but the one demographic that Trump does poorly with (white middle class women) - Tulsi would have provided balance I feel.

Hey don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy for trump to keep putting off those elusive swing voters due to grievance whining and ranting that you appear to market as "bombastic". Even if it is going to cost me the price of a stiff drink once the votes are tallied

Looking at our writings, I don't think we are going to move each others needles in a meaningful way from here.

If you too deem that to be the case, it looks like you are pitching and I'm batting now - take your best shot!

I had a good poke around some various polls on the 270towin website - if you exclude NYT and Bloomberg (both of which have a left-wing bias) - most of the other polls show Trump with a small lead over Harris. Sure, she has gotten a bump because unlike Biden she is at capable of finishing a sentence (a fact we all lament, unburdened by what has been) - but despite the numerous puff pieces propping her up like she is crushing Trump - she really isn't.

I am getting very distinct 2016 flashbacks with the polling data.

But as above - a good beverage bet is on the line.

[pete376403]

Nah - it was a combination of factors, change in jobs - personal life issues, trying to argue less and enjoy life more.

The Trump assassination attempt made me think of you guys though, so I stuck my head back in. I was missed be a few people - it was touching (they know who they are)

Tump was missed by a few millimeters - a lot of people were disappointed by thet, too

[sugilite:Me]

Are you saying that the other voters arent as smart or as sophisticated as me - Why Sugi, such flattery

Well, if you want to take it as a atta boy, thats completely up to you!

I think that most voters have a good idea of what Trump. The question for the voter is those that dislike his personality, but liked the country when he ran it - can they look past that?

I think with the assassination attempt, many can.

I mean, well trump kinda had maybe a small baby bump in the polls after the attempt, but I think kamala came along and aborted it before it came to full term

Yes and No - If you had a person you worked with who you felt consistently gave you positive results - and then they asked you to trust them on something - would you subject them to the same scrutiny as a random person or the same scrutiny as someone who you felt consistently failed to deliver?

When it comes to leading a country, standards must be maintained at all times.

Obligatory - I am not Trumps campaign manager (I know, I know - shocking) - If I were - I would not be touching policy at all.

Thank you for once again highlighting how trump is a cheapskate that does not pay his people what they are worth as clearly trump has been reading kiwibiker and has thus far followed your instructions to perfection

That said - I wouldn't have picked Vance. I would have picked Tulsi. Not because of my undying love for that Lady, but the one demographic that Trump does poorly with (white middle class women) - Tulsi would have provided balance I feel.

It does not take much imagination to gauge exactly what sort of feel you would have for Tulsi! I still miss reveling in miss truss boobies, it was an incredible couple of weeks seeing them near daily, what a shame it didn't last and the lettuce won

I had a good poke around some various polls on the 270towin website - if you exclude NYT and Bloomberg (both of which have a left-wing bias) - most of the other polls show Trump with a small lead over Harris. Sure, she has gotten a bump because unlike Biden she is at capable of finishing a sentence (a fact we all lament, unburdened by what has been) - but despite the numerous puff pieces propping her up like she is crushing Trump - she really isn't.
I am getting very distinct 2016 flashbacks with the polling data.

Wow, you are certainly in line for a gold medal in the polled voter event
Ahhh, I remember the good old days of the few hours before the last midterm US elections, "someone, cant think who?" was strutting around the forum like a proud peacock - hitting all the crack the polls had on offer! Only to then resemble a plucked turkey once the votes had been counted and the highly anticipated red wave had been severely downgraded to a small wet orange fart

But as above - a good beverage bet is on the line.

As exciting as that bet is, what a shame it could not have been a tulsi tug or a truss motorboating up for grabs - dammit.

[TheDemonLord]

Tump was missed by a few millimeters - a lot of people were disappointed by thet, too

Which speaks more about them than anything else.

I will say this, in the interest of fairness - one of the most unifying things post the attempt was the bi-partisan condemnation of the Secret Service by both the Republicans and the moderate Democrats.

Putting aside the fringes that as above - were disappointed - I saw a lot of commentary among the moderate Dems about how the multiple failings were unacceptable and how that is not what they expected for the Secret Service.

[TheDemonLord]

I mean, well trump kinda had maybe a small baby bump in the polls after the attempt, but I think kamala came along and aborted it before it came to full term

Something pointed out elsewhere - the Trump assassination attempt was in the news cycle for less time than Chris Rock getting slapped.

Consider how news outlets still bang on about Jan 6th - this is the sort of media bias we are talking about. We'll see. If the roles were reversed, I would bet that every major news outlet would be running a Harris Assassination story 24/7 until the polls closed.

We also have yet to see Trump vs Harris debate. Trump crushed Hilary, the 2020 Biden debate was not the best Trump performance (I still think he won - but then I am biased), 2024 Biden was so bad that Biden dropped out - If Trump can carry a little more of his subdued performance and act a little more Presidential - I dont see Harris winning the Debate.

Hell, Tulsi annihilated her in the 2020 primaries.

When it comes to leading a country, standards must be maintained at all times.

Is there any Politician, of any stripe, that comes close to that standard - even my own beloved Saint David of Seymour falls short.

I get your point - but you must admit that we grant more leeway to people we believe are working with our best interests at heart. The latter part is absolutely up for debate.

Thank you for once again highlighting how trump is a cheapskate that does not pay his people what they are worth as clearly trump has been reading kiwibiker and has thus far followed your instructions to perfection

4 more years of a Trump presidency with cheaper petrol, low inflation, good economy and less global war is more than payment enough.

It does not take much imagination to gauge exactly what sort of feel you would have for Tulsi! I still miss reveling in miss truss boobies, it was an incredible couple of weeks seeing them near daily, what a shame it didn't last and the lettuce won

This is the closest I will ever come to a personal riposte - Liz Truss, really? I mean I aint gonna Yuck your Yum...

However, back to my favorite topic:



A number of points - firstly her insight and commentary is fantastic. And secondly - Goddamn is that woman made of fine Wine. The silver streak is just doing all kinds of things.

Wow, you are certainly in line for a gold medal in the polled voter event
Ahhh, I remember the good old days of the few hours before the last midterm US elections, "someone, cant think who?" was strutting around the forum like a proud peacock - hitting all the crack the polls had on offer! Only to then resemble a plucked turkey once the votes had been counted and the highly anticipated red wave had been severely downgraded to a small wet orange fart

So we are talking the 2022 Midterms - my memory is a little hazy - but IIRC it was still a Republican victory, not as big as hoped - but there was a lot of results that on the surface looked like the red wave didn't happen, but when the data was dug into - showed that there was a definitive shift towards the Republican side.

Maybe it is optimism, maybe not - but I am getting 2016 vibes.

As exciting as that bet is, what a shame it could not have been a tulsi tug or a truss motorboating up for grabs - dammit.

Id let you have Liz for free if I could spend an evening with Lt Colonel Gabbard....

[husaberg]

I can only take from your analogies and apparent rating of "0" that trump is hopeless at communicating policies to potential voters - as actually hitting the target would comprise of having well informed potential voters at the end of said speech.
Furthermore, you are more than happy with a party leader not having the ability to articulate policies in any meaningful form. I assume you apply this low bar to all political leaders of every flavor when analyzing their performances?
I find this a very surprising position for you to take.
Personally, I prefer leaders to have the ability to communicate clearly, rather than an uninformative mess of grievance driven whining and rants.

Tump was missed by a few millimeters - a lot of people were disappointed by thet, too

Faux outrage about trump nearly getting shot.
Yet trump mocked a democrats leaders 80 year old husband who was attacked with a hammer and received a fractured skull?

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/wa...i-197718085570

Yet why did the attacker he say he did it?

[1/32 man]

This is what I mean by he seems to operate on gut instinct

How did that work out for the US when Covid showed up?