Trump vs Biden 2020, Ultimate battle for the fate of our universe (pt 3)Read OP 01/11

Ardillaun

NSAman wrote: »

Think we can all agree on one thing.....

The two worst possible candidates are again on the ballot

That Dem field had some rum characters. I think the parliamentary system is better - less tolerance for geezers.

Tell me how

Simi wrote: »

I couldn't help think about what would have happened if Pete Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders were there instead of Biden. Would have been a far more lively debate.

NSAman wrote: »

Think we can all agree on one thing.....

The two worst possible candidates are again on the ballot

Back in February, I hoped Bernie would have gotten the nomination, but, since then, I've formed the opinion that that would have just made it to easy for Trump to talk about socialism and how that would increase government and mean more regulations and taxes and that that would have been much easier to target and defeat for Trump.

I think Bernie has walked, so AOC and others can run in future (metaphorically and physically).

Pete is a very accomplished debater but again I think Trump could have targeted his comparable lack of experience in both politics and private life and again that would have been easier on Trump.

Biden is the best person to take on Trump at this point in time.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Biden plan

That is not a plan.

It's wishy-washy mumbo-jumbo masquerading as a plan.

Kermit.de.frog

"I know solar"

Donald Trump

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

That is not a plan.

It's wishy-washy mumbo-jumbo masquerading as a plan.

It's a plan, like it or not, agree with or not, it's a plan.

Give us a link to Trump's plans you deem worth of the name please.

Ardillaun

Tell me how wrote: »

Back in February, I hoped Bernie would have gotten the nomination, but, since then, I've formed the opinion that that would have just made it to easy for Trump to talk about socialism and how that would increase government and mean more regulations and taxes and that that would have been much easier to target and defeat for Trump.

I think Bernie has walked, so AOC and others can run in future (metaphorically and physically).

Pete is a very accomplished debater but again I think Trump could have targeted his comparable lack of experience in both politics and private life and again that would have been easier on Trump.

Biden is the best person to take on Trump at this point in time.

Pete would have (rhetorically) wrestled him to the ground in the first five minutes and put a bow on him. Unfortunately, the gay factor is still a handicap over there. Sanders might have exploded, so angry does he get on the subject of capitalist sleaze which Trump personifies.

Ardillaun

There is no cure for Covid yet. Why does Trump keep on saying that? And it won't soon be gone in the US. BTW one of the biggest Covid outbreaks per capita right now is in North Dakota which is not run by Dems.

Kermit.de.frog

Biden won with voters apparently

https://twitter.com/charlotteeffect/status/1319480498876485632

Biden won because he didn't need to do anything. Let Trump do the damage to Trump.

All Biden has to do is look calm and composed. He did that.

And the attacking Biden's son(s) thing is a REALLY bad look for people who have imperfect children (i.e everyone) and still love them.

It's attrocious.

Obsessed with "empathy" on CNN - must have mentioned the word over 20 times since the debate. According to the panel Joe has it and Trump doesn't.

Ardillaun

Deleted User wrote: »

Obsessed with "empathy" on CNN - must have mentioned the word over 20 times since the debate. According to the panel Joe has it and Trump doesn't.

Do you disagree? It's been a documented problem for Trump all his life and one of many reasons why he has lost the college-educated female vote

Overheal

sabat wrote: »

One cannot "self allege." Many Europeans have the right to vote in the United States.

You're thinking of Americans.

Quantum Erasure

Deleted User wrote: »

Obsessed with "empathy" on CNN - must have mentioned the word over 20 times since the debate. According to the panel Joe has it and Trump doesn't.

Theres no way I'd watch CNN, usually I like a contrary opinion to my point of view, but I like it to be somewhat balanced as well...

and I'm not particularly invested in US politics, Its more the spectacle I'm tuning in for

Ardillaun

Ardillaun wrote: »

Do you disagree? It's been a documented problem for Trump all his life and one of many reasons why he has lost the college-educated female vote

"Do I disagree" - probably not. CNN going overboard about it is annoying though. I have little interest in who wins the election (unless I back Trump :pac:). Twas the spectacle I tuned in for mainly, and don't watch news stations much - never mind American ones - but they're really biased against Trump.
Somehow I doubt J Biden is a humanitarian himself.

Quantum Erasure

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Theres no way I'd watch CNN, usually I like a contrary opinion to my point of view, but I like it to be somewhat balanced as well...

and I'm not particularly invested in US politics, Its more the spectacle I'm tuning in for

Same here regards spectacle is why I watched.. It was either CNN or Sky News; so I figured I'd go with the American station.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

If it’s normal find me a president who has molded a bigger percentage of the justice system with appointees - presumably besides George Washington and early presidents.

Over a quarter of the courts filled/replaced in 4 years.

Carter? 29%. Nixon, 32%? Kennedy/Johnson, 31%? (First-term figures, haven’t looked up second-terms). Clinton didn’t quite make a quarter, 22%.

Am I wrong in saying that they can only appoint judges where there are gaps?
How many open gaps on the judiciary remained unfilled after the first term of the Obama presidency? After all, the nuclear option was used so that Obama could fill the courts more quickly. Nixon didn’t have that advantage.

dwayneshintzy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Carter? 29%. Nixon, 32%? Kennedy/Johnson, 31%? (First-term figures, haven’t looked up second-terms). Clinton didn’t quite make a quarter, 22%.

Am I wrong in saying that they can only appoint judges where there are gaps?
How many open gaps on the judiciary remained unfilled after the first term of the Obama presidency? After all, the nuclear option was used so that Obama could fill the courts more quickly. Nixon didn’t have that advantage.

It was used so that he could fill some seats, full stop. Republicans obstructed any potential appointments and wouldn't allow hearings. That was a theme throughout Obama's Presidency, judicial appointments were blocked without even being considered purely because they were put forward by a Democrat President.

Trump likes to portray it as negligence by Obama that so many seats were left empty for him to fill, but it was a clear strategy my Mitch McConnell.

gmisk

Ardillaun wrote: »

Pete would have (rhetorically) wrestled him to the ground in the first five minutes and put a bow on him. Unfortunately, the gay factor is still a handicap over there. Sanders might have exploded, so angry does he get on the subject of capitalist sleaze which Trump personifies.

Totally agree on Pete.
Those clips of him recently on fox are hugely impressive

Cody montana

So who won the debate?

timsey tiger

Luxxis wrote: »

You do know Biden said "Trump is lying, I wont ban Fracking"

You do know Scientists say "Ban fracking"

What is your point, Trump is a better choice, because he listens to scientists?

You do know he thinks saying "somebody listens to science" is a way to mock them.

I was talking about Pence and the current administrations policies. I'm sure you will tell everybody that there is no difference, between the current one and the last one.

timsey tiger

Luxxis wrote: »

You need a source to tell you climate scientists don't think fracking is a good idea?


https://theclimatecenter.org/portfolio-item/top-climate-scientists-call-for-fracking-ban/

Is this why you are arguing against Biden? Do you thing the other guy is better on the environment? I guess you have forgotten our time in Paris.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cody montana wrote: »

So who won the debate?

Biden all the way, Trump was floundering all the way through, China this and his usual me me me oh dear poor me routine.

Cody montana

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Biden all the way, Trump was floundering all the way through, China this and his usual me me me oh dear poor me routine.

So 3/3 for Biden!

Not bad for someone who had advanced dementia a few weeks ago.

Phoebas

Cody montana wrote: »

So who won the debate?

In the first debate, Biden exceeded low expectations (low expectations set by the Trump campaign). In this debate, Trump probably did the same (low expectations set by his own poor performance at the first debate).

Trump needed a win and didn't get one. This was his last chance to turn things around and he didn't - it's hard to see any way he can win the election now.

Cody montana

+74,301 Cases and under 1000 deaths yesterday.

And trump says the country has rounded a corner.

hatrickpatrick

Granted I didn't stay up for the entire debate, but it honestly felt to me like Trump was killing it during the first half or so for one reason: At least at the start, Trump would attack Biden and brag about his own policy achievements, while Biden's knee jerk response tended to be attempting to turn everything back on Trump whenever he was asked a question. Now, whether these Trump's brags were bullsh!t or accurate is another matter entirely, but purely from a debating style point of view, IMO Biden fell into the same trap Clinton fell into in 2016 - imagining that a hostile "forget about me, just look at how much worse the other candidate is and vote against him" debating style would work. Personally I really, really feel that America is fed up with that from the Democrats and are looking for politicians to present a CV of their own suitability and desirability for office, as opposed to a list of reasons that the other guy is the worse choice.

Maybe those who are saying Biden won the debate can confirm whether he switched away from this particular tactic as the debate went on? I got as far as the end of the segment on parents of black children having to have a conversation warning their children about police brutality before pausing, so I reckon I watched up to about half way through. And obviously there were segments in which both candidates tripped up and segments which they both seemed prepared for, but I just couldn't help noticing that Biden very, very often answered a question with a reference to "he" or "him" as the direct response, in other words "Mr Biden, what would you do about X?" "Well he's made X a whole lot worse!" and I very much felt that this would ultimately not do him any favours at all based on the experience of Democratic disengagement in 2016 and during the last four years. Obviously this may be skewed by my own demographic leaning heavily Sanders or Warren in the primary this year, but I really don't think the "vote for me because the alternative is sh!te" argument works anymore.

One final thought, I will rewatch the whole thing this evening and I'm wondering if it could be that both candidates were sticking to the "I'mma say something negative about my opponent instead of something positive about myself" modus operandi - and it's just that I'm so used to Trump's bullsh!t by now that my brain tunes it out more effectively than it does Biden's? If so, I wonder if that translates at all to the undecided American viewer - the effect of "Trump Tolerance" if you like, deadening the emotional response to his BS but still being acutely aware of Biden's simply by virtue of not being utterly sick of him and his way of pontificating because we haven't had to listen to it for four years? If this is the case, weirdly, it actually seems to help Trump more than Biden. But again maybe that's just me.

I guess I just expected better from Biden. I expected Trump to be sh!te but I did not expect to see Biden struggle in any way to spar with him.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cody montana wrote: »

So 3/3 for Biden!

Not bad for someone who had advanced dementia a few weeks ago.

Who wasn't even going to show up according to the most vocal zealots!

MoonUnit75

Watched part of it, Biden held it together well considering. Shows what almost 50 years of political experience provides. As was said earlier though, these slick, rehearsed one liners from both of them, do they really go down well? It reminds me of the pantomime WWF stuff from the 90s.

It's a bizarre situation that these two are the 'best' candidates they can come up with. I think the US is not so much divided as a bit schizoid. What happened to 'stale, white male' when Kavanaugh was up for the supreme court?

Timberrrrrrrr

Funniest part for me was when they were talking about energy

Trump: "I know more about wind than you do, it's very expensive, it kills allllll the birds, it's very intermittent, and they make the windmills in Germany and China"

vojiwox

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Funniest part for me was when they were talking about energy

Trump: "I know more about wind than you do, it's very expensive, it kills allllll the birds, it's very intermittent, and they make the windmills in Germany and China"

Trump is a bit dumb IMO.

And he kind of comes across frustrated with it. Its like he knows he's dumb and says dumb things and gets annoyed when they are read back to him.

The bleach thing brought up tonight and he put his hand up to respond in such a serious way. It was like something from a Will Ferrel movie.

Surely this joke of a presidency is coming to an end. Absolutele farcical stuff from him for years now.

Brian?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Biden all the way, Trump was floundering all the way through, China this and his usual me me me oh dear poor me routine.

For me it was

1. The moderator
2. Biden
3. The scenery
4. Trump.