Yeah, the favorite candidate of racists and nativists DonOLD The Clown made those deplorables "proud" today.

It was awesome. The rude journo, recycling DNC talking points, was roundly handled and came off looking like a sour apparatchik. The other two were at least professional. But the whole thing was sabotage from the get-go, and it made them and their organization look like a shit-show. Kamala avoided it like the plague.

At any rate, nativists and racists would be unhappy about Trump’s statements.

The rude journo, recycling DNC talking points, was roundly handled and came off looking like a sour apparatchik. — NOS4A2

I'm sorry, but in a normal candidate, this might make sense, but Trump spews nasty rhetoric every day of his public life, when someone calls him out on it, he shouldn't act as if he doesn't deserve to be called out. Ridiculous. I would have supported you if it was your average politician, but then again, the amount of vitriol read back to that person would not be the same in the first place, so wouldn't even be an issue.

I'm sorry, but in a normal candidate, this might make sense, but Trump spews nasty rhetoric every day of his public life, when someone calls him out on it, he shouldn't act as if he doesn't deserve to be called out. Ridiculous. I would have supported you if it was your average politician, but then again, the amount of vitriol read back to that person would not be the same in the first place, so wouldn't even be an issue.

Politicians use critical rhetoric against their opponents all the time, and rightfully so. Personally I see nothing wrong with it, especially when it's defensive in nature, as it was against most of the comments she mentions, painted as they were in identity politics. Of course if one wants bromides, platitudes, and euphemisms he can find another politician.

Journalism is meant to inform us, not to repeat an opponents criticism or otherwise engage in the politics of a guest's opponents. That wasn't what was going on with that one particular journo. What she did was campaign for the opposition, using their own talking points, in an effort to smear her guest. The journalist in the middle was far more graceful in both insult and substance, both subduing Trump and asking him questions he seemingly could not answer, and making him look rather silly in the process. But because of the organization's failures we, as listeners, were robbed of any fruitful info because of it. At least we got the show, though.

Politicians use critical rhetoric against their opponents all the time, and rightfully so. — NOS4A2

Yeah, Trump's rhetoric is just "normal" political rhetoric. No difference in content or style whatsoever from other US politicians running in the last 60 years or so :roll:.

Personally I see nothing wrong with it, especially when it's defensive in nature — NOS4A2

But it's not, do I have to do one of those montages of all of his "rallys"?

as it was against most of the comments she mentions, painted as they were in identity politics. — NOS4A2

Yeah, what it was "identifying" was Trump's use of identity politics ;).

Of course if one wants bromides, platitudes, and euphemisms he can find another politician. — NOS4A2

Or how about just a politician and not a crazy juvenile-sounding name-calling reality show host/failed real estate celebrity using xenophobic/bigotted language to whip up his base?

Journalism is meant to inform us, not to repeat an opponents criticism or otherwise engage in the politics of a guest's opponents. — NOS4A2

In this case, it's informing us of Trump's rhetoric and why some might take offense to it, understandably. Of course he can get away with anything, right? As long as he pivots and says "I love (put identity group here)". As long as he does that anything he says before that is okie dokie, is that right?

What she did was campaign for the opposition, using their own talking points, in an effort to smear her guest. — NOS4A2

Trump's whole existence is about smearing. Obama wasn't born a US citizen, if you remember? Now Kamala is not half black? WTF? Trump is above identity politics. Sure is.

he journalist in the middle was far more graceful in both insult and substance, both subduing Trump and asking him questions he seemingly could not answer, and making him look rather silly in the process. — NOS4A2

Well, that shouldn't be hard, he is a silly, unserious person. Frankly, any journalist should be able to make him look silly.

But because of the organization's failures we, as listeners, were robbed of any fruitful info because of it. At least we got the show, though. — NOS4A2

Again, any other politician, probably a fair point. He acts like a belligerent asshole, who is reckless with his rhetoric, he should be treated like one.

it made them and their organization look like a shit-show — NOS4A2

Yeah, that’s definitely what it looks like. :rofl:

"Black jobs?"

"And when [DJT] attacks, he reveals a bit of himself; and what we saw was an elderly, obese, orange-tinted racist with a comb-over." ~Steve Schmidt, Never Trumper & former GOP campaign official :up:

Yeah, keep running your trashy, gutter mouth, DonOLD The Clown. :sweat:

Roevember is coming! :victory: :mask:

This — Benkei

"This" meaning the post I wrote? Or the Newsweek article I quoted? Unclear whether I need to defend what I think, or what Newsweek thinks. Suffice to say many observers saw Biden get shoved aside by an intra-party coup, or a "palace coup," as some described it. Of course not a violent or government-changing coup. So a soft coup. I can live with that. The word coup seems to bother you, I don't know why. You saw the same escalating pressure on Biden that I did. You saw that he was dug in right up to the Saturday before the Sunday he dropped out. You saw that his announcement was posted to X, was accompanied by no public statement or even a photograph, and bore a signature arguably not Biden's.

You saw him disappear for five days. You saw his 11 minute hostage video, full of platitudes about democracy and the good of the country. And since then we've barely seen him at all. Like I say, if that's all we get in the way of proof of life, I ain't payin' the ransom.

You can spin this all you want as "statesman Joe" being a great patriot. That's the public face of a nasty back room business. Anyone with eyes and a knowledge of history and politics knows that.

is as usual written by people who barely understand what a democracy is and what a political party is. — Benkei

Democracy has many meanings. Democracy as in the vote of the people, or an abstract word casually applied to our political system. But we are not a direct democracy, we are a representative democracy. Our system is designed as a Constitutional republic, a Federal system of (in principle) autonomous states with rights and powers that sometimes supersede those of the Federal government.

Of course you know all this. You are playing fast and loose with the word democracy as if it's a talisman against anyone who holds a different opinion.

Biden was the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party not the "democratically elected presidential nominee". — Benkei

He won fourteen million primary votes. He won over 3800 delegates, to his collective opponents' 43 or so. He had twice the number of delegates needed to win the nomination.

Kamala Harris, by contrast, got zero delegates when she was forced, by lack of popularity, out of the 2020 primaries before the elections even began. She did not run in the 2024 primaries, which were rigged for Biden, only for the Dems to shove him aside when they could no longer hide his cognitive troubles.

It's not only Republicans and fallen liberals like myself who see the irony of the Democrats bleating about "democracy," when they so profoundly fail to exemplify it. It's like the line in the film Patton, where George C. Scott as Patton says, "We defend democracy here, we don't practice it." But he was talking about the Army. The Democratic party does not do democracy. They swindled their voters in 2016, as even Biden pointed out recently; saying that he could have beaten Trump, and that Hillary, whom the party insiders elevated against the will of the voters, couldn't. And didn't.

They swindled their voters again in 2020 with the Clyburn deal, elevating Biden over several more popular liberals.

Here's Barrons. Harris Skipped the Primaries. Was It Undemocratic?.

It's an opinion piece. I don't claim they're right or wrong. Only that prominent observers see what I see, and ask the same questions. I have no investment in these links, they just popped up near the top when I put in my keywords about democracy and the coronation of Kamala.

Here's a legal site with a provocative title on-topic to our conversation:

Confused Appeals to Democracy, the Surprisingly Strong Harris Candidacy, and a Fair Assessment of Biden

Confused appeals to democracy. Exactly what you just did. Kamala's ascent was anything but democratic. It's you who "barely understands what a democracy is ..." if you think there was anything democratic about the Biden/Kamala swapout. Not to mention the ascension of Biden in 2020 with his basement campaign and three and a half years of gaslighting the country about his deteriorating (and for the record, tragic) cognitive health.

The Party is not a democracy and has its own process for nominating the nominee and had every option available to it to not nominate Biden at the upcoming convention. Biden could either leave on his own, or get booted during the convention. In fact, it would be a breach of trust towards Democratic voters to allow an incompetent, senile grey-tufted old fogey to run as the nominee all but ensuring Democratic values would not be pursued for 4 years due to losing the presidency. — Benkei

Haha. I admire your pluck in pressing a point that I personally know to be absurd.

But tell me, why do you bother to insist on the point? The Dems won. Everyone thought they had an insoluble Biden problem on their hands. They moved Biden out and the party and the mainstream media fell into line. Saint Kamala it is.

And Trump, I'm the first one to admit, has been stumbling lately. That "Kamala's not black" line was a freaking disaster. The man is his own worst enemy. Likewise Vance, he's also a disaster. It's a highly gendered election and Vance is very nasty towards women. Trump and Vance are busy repelling the centrist voters they need to attract. It's as if they didn't get the memo that the primaries are over and that the general election is about winning the center.

So Benkei, your side won this round. Kamala's ascendent and Trump is struggling to regain his footing.

We don't know how long this will last, and how exogenous events (Israel-Iran war, anyone?) will affect the race.

But in the past two weeks the Dems are kicking the GOP's butt. You should be happy. Give it a rest. You don't like the word coup, so be it. You think Biden was a statesman who willingly stepped aside, I say he all but got a shiv in the back; and for all we know, he got one for real.

So be happy, allow me to call a coup a coup. It won't do you any good to say it wasn't, because it was. Bloodless coup, palace coup, intra-party coup, soft coup. But a coup, regardless.

If you disagree, that's ok. Be happy, you won the last two weeks of the news cycle.

By the way, when's your gal Kam going to hold a press conferene or sit for an interview? 11 days and counting. She does scripted appearances with Megan Thee Stallion. You go girl.

The worst is they lied and covered for Biden’s condition for years. So not only did they nullify the primaries and deny the votes of tens of millions of people with their palace coup, they did so only because they couldn’t keep up the charade any longer. — NOS4A2

I yearn for the American people to punish the Democratic party for the fraud they've perpetrated on us these past four years. It's not going to happen.

Votes and elections and so-called democratic institutions mean very little to them in principle. It’s probably why they dropped the “threat to democracy” schtick and went with calling their opponents “weird”. But remember all this when they avail you of the sanctity of elections. — NOS4A2

They're hardly in a position to talk about democracy! And of course the weird line is stupid, but if they repeat it often enough it might stick with some voters. Politics is a dirty business and the Dems are united with new found enthusiasm and hope. Solving their Biden problem has energized them incredibly. Trump and Vance are back on their heels. They better smarten up soon or it's going to be president Kamala.

It's not a coup which you keep using because you insist something bad or illegal happened. It didn't. It doesn't matter how many votes he got as a nominee, he wasn't confirmed as the nominee. He stepped down or would've been removed at the convention in accordance with party rule. His presumptive nomination didn't confer any powers either. For a coup both rules need to be broken and power shifted. Neither happened.

Finally, I didn't appeal to it being democratic but that it would've been a breach of trust by the Democratic Party to let a doorknob run for the presidency. Learn to read.

It's not a coup which you keep using because you insist something bad or illegal happened. — Benkei

I didn't say it was necessarily bad. Clearly it's been a big win for the Democratic party. Every coup is bad for the coup-ee and good for the coup-er. Julius Caesar had a bad day, but the fifty Roman senators who conspired against him were no doubt pleased with their handiwork.

I already conceded that nothing illegal happened.

You are locked in to the word. I'll leave you to it.

It didn't. It doesn't matter how many votes he got as a nominee, he wasn't confirmed as the nominee. He stepped down or would've been removed at the convention in accordance with party rule. His presumptive nomination didn't confer any powers either. For a coup both rules need to be broken and power shifted. Neither happened. — Benkei

I'm getting dizzy just watching you spin.

Power shifted like Mario Andretti at the Indy 500. Biden had and still has many supporters among the Democrats. They got shafted along with his fourteen million primary voters. They've had to go along with the coup now that it's a done deal; but they are not necessarily happy about it.

Finally, I didn't appeal to it being democratic but that it would've been a breach of trust by the Democratic Party to let a doorknob run for the presidency. — Benkei

Then why did they promote someone whose door knobitude was already evident in 2019? That's how long this breach of trust, this massive fraud on the American people, has been going on. And they only did something about it because their little fraud blew up in their faces. Else it would still be going on.

You are impute virtue to the Democrats in this corrupt charade? You don't even believe what you're writing. It's all partisan spin.

Learn to read. — Benkei

You were blathering about democracy a couple of posts back. I do read what you write. Perhaps you should.

Power shifted like Mario Andretti at the Indy 500. Biden had and still has many supporters among the Democrats. They got shafted along with his fourteen million primary voters. They've had to go along with the coup now that it's a done deal; but they are not necessarily happy about it. — fishfry

What power of authority did Biden have as the presumptive nominee at the exclusion of everybody else? None. He had no power as presumptive nominee especially if at the convention, entirely in line with democratic party rules, his nomination could be taken. The appeal to his primary votes are irrelevant as party rules are also what they voted for. In fact, within their vote is included the possibility the nominee cancels their candidacy, drops dead, becomes ill, mad, is assinated or removed in accordance with party rules.

The only reason so many people like you are making such a huge issue about it is myopic politics. This is simply not a big deal and anybody who keeps insisting on it make a living out of having dumb opinions.

Suffice to say many observers saw Biden get shoved aside by an intra-party coup, or a "palace coup," as some described it. Of course not a violent or government-changing coup. So a soft coup. I can live with that. The word coup seems to bother you, I don't know why. — fishfry

I think my problem with this is that it implies that Biden had power or control taken away from him. Which in this context (since he's still the President) could only mean his power within the party.

But to me it looks more like Biden's power within his party had been on a downward trajectory for several months, which probably is why he did the early debate in the first place. Which then just rapidly accelerated the collapse of his constituency within the party.

Biden had and still has many supporters among the Democrats. — fishfry

Is there evidence for this?

You saw that his announcement was posted to X, was accompanied by no public statement or even a photograph, and bore a signature arguably not Biden's.

You saw him disappear for five days. You saw his 11 minute hostage video, full of platitudes about democracy and the good of the country. And since then we've barely seen him at all. Like I say, if that's all we get in the way of proof of life, I ain't payin' the ransom. — fishfry

What's the argument here? That Biden is dead? Held hostage in some secret facility? They replaced him with a body double?

Are we really in ancient aliens territory here?

It's not only Republicans and fallen liberals like myself who see the irony of the Democrats bleating about "democracy," when they so profoundly fail to exemplify it. — fishfry

And what would the democratic move have looked like?

They're hardly in a position to talk about democracy! — fishfry

If that's the argument, then neither are republicans after all the undemocratic shit they pulled since at least Obama's presidency.

But usually we call this "whataboutism", since your opponent's faults don't entitle you to repeat them.

I see nothing wrong with a firebrand, and in fact prefer them. And the argument there are or were no firebrands in American politics is simply false. But your complaints about name-calling and smearing is betrayed when you seem quite comfortable with the smearing and name-calling yourself, and in Trumpian fashion no less. So what’s really the problem? Something else must be bothering you.

My guess is you are yearning for the placating platitudes, euphemisms, and bromides that tend to lull the public to sleep. It serves to disguise a politician’s actual thoughts and intentions behind an opaque cloud of political play-acting, so that they may get away with murder or convince you to war. This sort of language is designed so that you don’t have to think about politics, so it’s no strange wonder that one might resent when he sees its opposite. It’s the kind of rhetoric that makes Orwell turn in his grave, and the daily Two Minutes Hate we see at little shows like that one make it all the more egregious.

Isn’t this so? Or is it something else?

I see nothing wrong with a firebrand, and in fact prefer them. And the argument there are or were no firebrands in American politics is simply false. — NOS4A2

Firebrand? What do you mean by that? You can have politicians with enthusiasm with out being race-baiters, promote conspiracies and misinformation if elections don't go your way (thus destroying the very platform of government itself), and violent rhetoric (bloodbath if you don't win..). Yeah there's being a fiery, inspiring speaker, and there's being a juvenile hack that barks out loud the (previously) less pronounced alt-right echo chambers.

But your complaints about name-calling and smearing is betrayed when you seem quite comfortable with the smearing and name-calling yourself, and in Trumpian fashion no less. So what’s really the problem? Something else must be bothering you. — NOS4A2

Yeah the major difference is I AM NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE. :lol:. Yeah, if I was running for office, I wouldn't be speaking in public speeches like a casual debater from a relatively obscure internet forum.

My guess is you are yearning for the placating platitudes, euphemisms, and bromides that tend to lull the public to sleep. — NOS4A2

It's called decorum and there was a reason these norms came about. It allows for shared space of differences without leading to inflammatory rhetoric that gets increased until it tears the system itself apart.

It serves to disguise a politician’s actual thoughts and intentions behind an opaque cloud of political play-acting, so that they may get away with murder or convince you to war. — NOS4A2

If you are saying there should be more transparency for decision making in executive actions and legislative policy (as well as financial aspects of interest groups and campaigns), then I am totally in agreement. But do not make the false equivalency that this kind of systemic transparency is the same as carnival barker/inflammatory rhetoric. Also, just because Trump OPENLY tries to break or subvert the system (asking for votes, promoting pressure for Pence to throw the votes out, etc.), doesn't make the corruption any better! His one trick is to do the quiet part out loud and shock the people into daring to stop him. Luckily, they did and are trying to.. except for the immunity given to the office of President so that he can get away with whatever he wants.

It’s the kind of rhetoric that makes Orwell turn in his grave, and the daily Two Minutes Hate we see at little shows like that one make it all the more egregious. — NOS4A2

You mean like Orwellian ideas like "If I lose, then the election was corrupt" or kissing up to dictators as an international relations strategy? You mean the pithy slogans like "Lock her up!", and "Trump Derangement Syndrome"? This is all laughable rhetorical strategies that work for a segment of the population that has been primed from the 80s/90s by other carnival barkers like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, and almost all of Fox News apparatus.

Oh yes all the talking points have returned. You almost got all of them fit into one post. Bravo.

As you all bicker over which clown should get to play pretend in the White House, US Congress gave 50+ standing ovations to a war criminal, who subsequently assassinated the chief Palestinian negotiator while they were visiting Iran, bringing wider Middle-East conflict and a US-Iran war ever closer.

Don't you all realize how petty this shit is compared to actual things that are happening in the world as a result of your out-of-control government?

This thread is a living testament to how "they" win.

And before you ask who "they" are: have you ever wondered where all these wars keep coming from that no one ever asked for and were part of neither party's campaign?

There's a mysterious "they" who ordered Hamas to attack Israel? Russia to invade Ukraine?

, who subsequently assassinated the chief Palestinian negotiator — Tzeentch

poor innocent haniyeh :cry:

murdered by those evil zionists :rofl:

I swear there are paid social media people here in "The Lounge" discussions on behalf of who knows what interest groups.

I hope you're not talking about me, schop.

But to respond seriously to your remark: Imagine paying people for that. Propaganda lesson #1 is to get people emotionally invested to such an extent that they will parrot bullshit willingly.

My guess is you are yearning for the placating platitudes, euphemisms, and bromides that tend to lull the public to sleep. It serves to disguise a politician’s actual thoughts and intentions behind an opaque cloud of political play-acting, so that they may get away with murder or convince you to war. This sort of language is designed so that you don’t have to think about politics, so it’s no strange wonder that one might resent when he sees its opposite. It’s the kind of rhetoric that makes Orwell turn in his grave, and the daily Two Minutes Hate we see at little shows like that one make it all the more egregious. — NOS4A2

Great speech. :clap: Now back to the endless apologetics for the Trump cult.

Not a shred of irony detected.

Kamala officially made the nominee.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/08/02/us/harris-trump-election

Oh joy.

I hope you're not talking about me, schop.

But to respond seriously to your remark: Imagine paying people for that. Propaganda lesson #1 is to get people emotionally invested to such an extent that they will parrot bullshit willingly. — Tzeentch

Interesting you took offense...
Are you the expert then? Is this admission ;)?

I guess I'm asking, what are you talking about? My comments to @NOS4A2? The irony of the meta-narrative here...

The old narrative of not being (at least openly!) narcissistic, non-empathetic, authoritarian, xenophobic, etc. and holding some decorum...

The new framework that has been "normalized" under Trump (@NOS4A2's odd brand of propaganda).

The CON- that the old narrative is "parroting bullshit" willingly, because "as we all should know now" the Trump new framework is just the way it is now, and ironically asking for the old framework is extremely regressive, because it asks for politicians to have civility and normalized leadership styles for a world leader (one that doesn't act like a carnival barking petty-dictator/cult leader).

@schopenhauer1 laments the loss of decorum in politics, and Trump, through his magic words, is making it all happen. No greater example of magical thinking has been published.

laments the loss of decorum in politics, and Trump, through his magic words, is making it all happen. No greater example of magical thinking has been published. — NOS4A2

Yeah Trumps rhetoric is normal shit a leader should be saying :ok:.

If nothing else, his association in trying to find any way to thwart election results and peaceful transfer of power should give you pause. But I know, I know, I’m just parroting the clearly biased left wing media, even though as you look into it more and more, even though he literally needed immunity from the Supreme Court to give him an out :lol:. What a joke.

Right, contesting an election is wrong in your strange world… or at least only when Donald Trump does it. Yeah, the Supreme Court had to shut down a politicized Justice Department and prove the unconstitutionality of their politicized indictments, but it’s all Trump’s fault.

Right, because organizing fake slates of electors, organizing (but with just enough plausible deniability!) violent mobs at the capitol to pressure the VP to “do the right thing” and making an openly blatant call to Georgia’s SoS to find him votes and overturn the election results have nothing to do with Trump. Nothing to see at all, right?

Find illegal votes because he was concerned about illegal activity, like a president ought to be. Democrats objected to Trump’s election first by trying to impose “faithless electors”, and also by claiming Trump was working for the Kremlin. Their constituents took over entire cities, and burned many to the ground, including laying siege to the whitehouse. All of this of course passes your norm test, I’m sure, but if course I never saw you raise any objection.

Their constituents took over entire cities, and burned many to the ground, including laying siege to the whitehouse — NOS4A2

That's because Democrats are always heavily armed.