Conquer Club

riskllama wrote:saxi or Trump?

Trump

Keefie wrote:

riskllama wrote:saxi or Trump?

Trump

riskllama wrote:i have also heard he's planning on withholding a stimulus package until after the election, which sort of seems like a childish attempt to gain some votes - def. not in the best interests of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Murica. man, does this guy ever need to go...

It's because the Rats have loaded it with pork to prop up their failing states that are so badly managed people are organizing coup attempts. From CNBC ...



Sorry Rats, you don't get 25% more just because Cuomo and Newsom have run New York and California into the dirt. Either we get as much as you, or no one gets anything. We'll let this bitch burn to the ground before you get one red cent more than us.

degaston wrote:

Keefie wrote:

riskllama wrote:

Keefie wrote:

saxi or Trump?

Trump

I was going to ask that question until I realized. The answer is probably Saxi, because Trump isn't afraid of a soiled towel, being peed on or getting his hands dirty, grabbing 'em by the pussy.

"Lock her up!" is already fading in people's memories, but "Grab 'em by the pussy" marches on. This will be Trump's legacy!

Kan I axe you a quechon? I Hillary and/or Slick got arrested and charged with having someone killed would you be surprised?

I'd 100% be thinking, "I knew it!"

saxitoxin wrote:President Donald J. Trump - having now gone through the crucible and emerged stronger than ever - now has immunity to the coronavirus, while Old Sleepy Joe must continue cowering and hiding. This is an election pitting the strong versus the weak.

Meanwhile, in the real world, outside a cultist's wet dream fantasy, the weak, scared president has decided to cower and hide, rather than debate the strong, steady Joe Biden.

Trump does want to do the 2nd debate, but in person. Joe doesn't want to do the 2nd debate in person. That was the initial agreement, no?

Besides, the moderator was a former Joe Biden staffer, so calling the 2nd debate "fair" is a supreme overstretch.

I would change my mind and would want Trump to do the 2nd debate, if they got a Trump staffer to moderate the 3rd debate. Or Joe Rogan for a 4th debate.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Trump does want to do the 2nd debate, but in person. Joe doesn't want to do the 2nd debate in person. That was the initial agreement, no?

The initial agreement was that the first debate would be respectful and each candidate would get 2 minutes uninterrupted to answer each question. An agreement which Trump violated 128 times. He has nothing to say that is logically defensible. His entire debate strategy is to shout over his opponent and dominate with sheer bombast.

Everybody I've read is fed up with it, except for Trump's loyal propaganda bureau at Fox News.

Over the years several people have tried to moderate Trump, and all have failed. He has no respect for any of the normal conventions of debate, he interrupts and shouts over people and nothing, not even a signed agreement, will stop him. Having the power to cut his mike is the only thing that would make him debate in a civilized manner, so of course he won't put himself in a position where that is possible. That's all that this is about. There's no logical or technical reason to refuse a virtual debate. As far back as 1960, one of the Nixon-Kennedy debates was virtual, and we've had 60 years of technological advances since then, so a virtual debate could be completely seamless and smooth. The only reason Trump won't do it is that it could be used to prevent his thuggish behaviour in shouting over his opponent.

saxitoxin wrote: Sorry Rats, you don't get 25% more just because Cuomo and Newsom have run New York and California into the dirt.

Just a note to thank the democrat rats... thanks for running CA into the dirt and making it the fifth largest economy in the world (ahead of India and it's 1.3 billion people).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California

Dukasaur wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Trump does want to do the 2nd debate, but in person. Joe doesn't want to do the 2nd debate in person. That was the initial agreement, no?

The initial agreement was that the first debate would be respectful and each candidate would get 2 minutes uninterrupted to answer each question. An agreement which Trump violated 128 times. He has nothing to say that is logically defensible. His entire debate strategy is to shout over his opponent and dominate with sheer bombast.

Everybody I've read is fed up with it, except for Trump's loyal propaganda bureau at Fox News.

Over the years several people have tried to moderate Trump, and all have failed. He has no respect for any of the normal conventions of debate, he interrupts and shouts over people and nothing, not even a signed agreement, will stop him. Having the power to cut his mike is the only thing that would make him debate in a civilized manner, so of course he won't put himself in a position where that is possible. That's all that this is about. There's no logical or technical reason to refuse a virtual debate. As far back as 1960, one of the Nixon-Kennedy debates was virtual, and we've had 60 years of technological advances since then, so a virtual debate could be completely seamless and smooth. The only reason Trump won't do it is that it could be used to prevent his thuggish behaviour in shouting over his opponent.

Biden interrupted Trump first.

Cutting the mic of a political opponent is borderline fascism. So you support the silence of those with whom you disagree? Virtual debates follow the same general principle. Trump, nor Biden, should give control of the method of their speech delivery another individual or entity. Period.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Cutting the mic of a political opponent is borderline fascism. So you support the silence of those with whom you disagree?

NO. I support people respectfully waiting their turn to speak. I support people having the goddamn common decency to listen politely while their opponent is making his point, and then making their point.

mookiemcgee wrote:

saxitoxin wrote: Sorry Rats, you don't get 25% more just because Cuomo and Newsom have run New York and California into the dirt.

Just a note to thank the democrat rats... thanks for running CA into the dirt and making it the fifth largest economy in the world (ahead of India and it's 1.3 billion people).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California

In the last 100 years, California has only had a Rat governor 30% of the time and a Republican governor 70% of the time.

Thank you, Governors Schwarzenegger, Reagan, Deukmejian and the rest, for making California great!

Suck it, Rats, for tearing down what they built!

Dukasaur wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Cutting the mic of a political opponent is borderline fascism. So you support the silence of those with whom you disagree?

NO. I support people respectfully waiting their turn to speak. I support people having the goddamn common decency to listen politely while their opponent is making his point, and then making their point.

lol, duk - why are you even bothering?

Dukasaur wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Cutting the mic of a political opponent is borderline fascism. So you support the silence of those with whom you disagree?

NO. I support people respectfully waiting their turn to speak. I support people having the goddamn common decency to listen politely while their opponent is making his point, and then making their point.

Ok, so then you don't support the restriction of cutting someone's mic then.

riskllama wrote:
lol, you have a real comprehension problem, Jd...

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Cutting the mic of a political opponent is borderline fascism. So you support the silence of those with whom you disagree?

NO. I support people respectfully waiting their turn to speak. I support people having the goddamn common decency to listen politely while their opponent is making his point, and then making their point.

Ok, so then you don't support the restriction of cutting someone's mic then.

If he's a repeat offender and won't stop interrupting, then yes. Of course I would cut his mike until it's his turn to speak.

Not for a first offense and not even for a third, but once the interruptions would reach double digits, then for sure. There's no way I would let someones offenses get into triple digits as they did with Trump.

Dukasaur wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Cutting the mic of a political opponent is borderline fascism. So you support the silence of those with whom you disagree?

NO. I support people respectfully waiting their turn to speak. I support people having the goddamn common decency to listen politely while their opponent is making his point, and then making their point.

Ok, so then you don't support the restriction of cutting someone's mic then.

If he's a repeat offender and won't stop interrupting, then yes. Of course I would cut his mike until it's his turn to speak.

Not for a first offense and not even for a third, but once the interruptions would reach double digits, then for sure. There's no way I would let someones offenses get into triple digits as they did with Trump.

Ok, so then you support the silence of those with whom you disagree.

Please pick one or the other. You can't have it both ways.

whoosh

saxitoxin wrote:

riskllama wrote:i have also heard he's planning on withholding a stimulus package until after the election, which sort of seems like a childish attempt to gain some votes - def. not in the best interests of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Murica. man, does this guy ever need to go...

It's because the Rats have loaded it with pork to prop up their failing states that are so badly managed people are organizing coup attempts. From CNBC ...



Sorry Rats, you don't get 25% more just because Cuomo and Newsom have run New York and California into the dirt. Either we get as much as you, or no one gets anything. We'll let this bitch burn to the ground before you get one red cent more than us.

------Michigan is Free ...by our (MI)Supreme Court,...not by an "A"-Team fake group ...foiled by The Mystery Machine Gang....I can here them now....We would have gotten away with it...If it hadn't been for those meddling kids and Scooby-Doo!!!!!!! ....
------The sad Thing is Mike Ilitch won't be able to help Detroit and Michigan again...Like before,he passed away last year... .....And now Covid-19 lock downs...has shown people,can do other things,besides going to sporting Events...Covid has killed the sports industry...sorry Ilitch family (Detroit Tigers and Red Wings)..But Southwest Detroit...Shall Rise Again... ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)... ...That picture...SAX...Is what Detroit has looked like the past 50ish years...That is just a typical average day...In the life of a Detroiter...Thanks Democratic run cities...

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Cutting the mic of a political opponent is borderline fascism. So you support the silence of those with whom you disagree?

NO. I support people respectfully waiting their turn to speak. I support people having the goddamn common decency to listen politely while their opponent is making his point, and then making their point.

Ok, so then you don't support the restriction of cutting someone's mic then.

If he's a repeat offender and won't stop interrupting, then yes. Of course I would cut his mike until it's his turn to speak.

Not for a first offense and not even for a third, but once the interruptions would reach double digits, then for sure. There's no way I would let someones offenses get into triple digits as they did with Trump.

Ok, so then you support the silence of those with whom you disagree.

Please pick one or the other. You can't have it both ways.

I don't know what part you're finding hard to comprehend. I support everyone involved having a fair chance to speak. In order to be meaningful, rules need to be enforced. If people are not playing by the rules and interrupting others, they need to be told to STFU until it's their turn. For most people this is a really simple issue.

Duke wants a debate. That means each person gets time to try to explain their opinion.

Other wise it's a speech or a lecture and you only need one side present.

They are only proposing turning off the mic to force him to pause. It's different from taking his mic away.

Dukasaur wrote:I don't know what part you're finding hard to comprehend. I support everyone involved having a fair chance to speak. In order to be meaningful, rules need to be enforced. If people are not playing by the rules and interrupting others, they need to be told to STFU until it's their turn. For most people this is a really simple issue.

You have a contradiction above. You believe in having a fair chance to speak, but are for removing the avenue for which one would speak, should he say something you disagree with. Pick one or the other, because the two cannot go together. You say that Trump interrupts, but so does Biden. So according to you, both should have their method of delivery removed if they don't do what you want them to do. Authoritarian.

2dimes wrote:Duke wants a debate. That means each person gets time to try to explain their opinion.

Other wise it's a speech or a lecture and you only need one side present.

They are only proposing turning off the mic to force him to pause. It's different from taking his mic away.

Turning off his mic, forcing him to "pause" has the same effect as taking away someone's avenue to speak. Force.

WHOOSH