Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it's both good and bad for Trump. It's good in that cutting Trump off and not allowing him to go on another 'shark vs battery' rant is beneficial to him. The more the public hears of Trump's delusional thoughts and are reminded just how weird he is, the less the public will want to vote for him.
But it's bad in that being told he cannot talk will irk him like a 5 year old in time out. If he's repeatedly told 'no' and 'be quiet someone else is talking' he could well be unable to control himself and have an outburst on stage.
I've seen many of his recent interviews and he looks like shit, cannot keep a single thought in his head, and truly sounds even more deranged than normal, something I thought he'd already maxed out.
I imagine Trump will go on at least 1 rant about the 2020 election.
> I imagine Trump will go on at least 1 rant about the 2020 election.
He has to know he's going to be asked if he accepts the results of the 2020 election and when he can't say yes he's going to be asked why there is no evidence and then it's off to the races.
That plus what is he going to say about the Jan. 6 riot on congress that the Dems won't later play over video showing violence?
this is a perfectly fair question to ask, in fact perhaps the most vital one on most people's minds.
If you are not a hardcore trumpista the one thing you want to know if you are trying to decide if you can tolerate Trump long enough to vote for him is whether you think he fully intends to create mass civic disorder even in the event of a clear and legitimate loss.
This is honestly a major fear among moderate liberals in my experience (and personally). He has shown he is willing to use power and influence to make discord if it means getting his way, and that is legit frightening. It’s why I can’t even consider voting for him no matter how concerned I am for Biden’s salience.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do you have an example?
It’s not abnormal for a president to have “handlers” especially if they are visiting . I’m willing to check out an example though!
They may have handlers, but they don't grab their hand, like Obama did, to lead them away at the Juneteenth celebration. And his wife is constantly at his side, directing him here and there. Did Laura Bush or Hilary Clinton every lead their husbands around? Nope. That scene of him being led away from the D-Day celebration by Jill was just . . . sad. Usually when handlers are managing the primary, it's along the lines of hurrying him to his next appointment and not letting the primary get caught in the weeds of handshaking, etc. Not gently leading them away from the event.
>The more the public hears of Trump's delusional thoughts and are reminded just how weird he is, the less the public will want to vote for him.
I actually don't think this is true. I think the public has heard more than enough examples of his delusional thoughts spanning throughout his entire political account, albeit more frequently now due to his age and clear declining mental state.
All that being said, I think the more conservatives back off of Trump, the smaller the community gets. Likewise, the "devolution into delusion" only becomes more concentrated and compact, and in turn becomes more vehement and vocal. When more people leave Trump's inner circle, his followers have to become LOUDER to compensate for the loss of noise and keep themselves present. I think Trump knows this pattern very well and feeds into it in order to keep his ship floating.
There is never a moment in my entire life that I have ever considered voting for Trump or anyone like him.
It's so blatantly obvious that he is the stupidest person in existence. His entire political career is built on being a reality tv show host and claiming Obama was not an America but a Kenyan Muslim communist.
It's pathetic.
Through the transitive property it doesn't seem like you think much of American conservatives.
Would you even be considered a conservative by American standards?
American conservatives chose him. Presumably because he represents their values.
Isn't that what a presidential candidate is?
>He represents something else.
What?
This comment might get deleted, but I think he represents anger and disillusionment with the mainstream more than he represents actual conservatism.
I think some conservatives on this sub would agree with that, but not everyone.
> American conservatives chose him.
There are quite a few conservatives on this subreddit that like to say the GOP isn't a conservative party and/or Trump isn't conservative it's just the party/president that conservatives vote for cause the other option are the Democrats/biden.
Whether you buy that or not is up to you.
The lack of an audience is good for the human species, and probably some aliens if they're actually hiding on the other side of the moon. Not sure if it's necessarily in Trump's favor though. Otherwise, the only rule that seems out of the ordinary is the muted mic while not on the clock.
That one is a bit of a curiosity. I recall reading it would be a rule in past debates (not presidential) and in effect it seemed like there was no rule at all (maybe the issue was the other candidates' microphones worked well enough to pick up the chatter). But maybe that's all in my head.
On balance I expect it to help Biden. He's a lot cooler than Trump and his spontaneous facial expressions are more friendly and relatable.
Muted microphone is probably due to prior actions of Mr Trump always trying to shout down the person whose turn it is to answer. Nothing curious there.
Dude, come on. Jackasses yelling over each other has been televised debates since I was in diapers. The mute button has been an idea that whole time. And like I said, I really do think it's been tried before and did nothing.
That just means you're younger than me, I remember when debates were a group of civilized statesmen answering and rebutting questions on the issues. It never devolved into shouting over each other or name calling.
So, I'd like to first say that I did stop and give your question some thought, but I'm including this preamble because it might not seem so from my answer:
Yes.
Follow up question for you: do you think this will make the "they're silencing him!" problem substantially worse?
Since I couldn't post it in the original question.
No live studio audience, standing candidates at uniform podiums, muted mikes when it's not their turn to speak, no pre-written notes and no campaign aide interaction during the debate.
Is this going to expose Trump's weakness as a public speaker? Will the conservative community accept it as shown, or claim some kind of detrimental to Trump editing is taking place?
I mean, I don’t really have any issue with the rules in general.
Trump always had a tendency to go on tangents (because that really is how normal people speak, not seasoned politicians tho), so he definitely needs to keep that in mind. He needs to keep reminding himself “I shan’t mince words!”
> Trump always had a tendency to go on tangents (because that really is how normal people speak, not seasoned politicians tho)
When you're working do you go on meandering tangents? I rarely do and never to a degree that I would call Trumpian.
I'd argue this is bad for Trump because some of his debate tactics involve tangents and one-liners for applause.
You take away the audience, Biden's dry humor comes across better and Trump's bombastics don't hit as hard.
You take away the tangents, and suddenly Trump can't flood the zone with rambling. He has to get to the point, and frankly I don't think he has consistent views on a lot of things. He won't do good with that.
I'm rarely called upon to expound extemporaneuously in a situation where any little thing I say could be used against me.
Politicians do not talk like normal people becasue we will not let them. If they made the kind of statements that people make in real life those could be used in bad faith against them.
Example: the reason Bush fumbled the famous "fool me once" quote is that he realized about 2 seconds to late that the words "shame on me" exiting his mouth would be edited in bad-faith ways to hurt him and it was better to look like an idiot than give them the ammo.
How about we hold them to the same standard of honesty that normal people are in their everyday lives. Maybe then they wouldn't be as inclined to just tell us what they think we want to hear at that particular moment.
Yes. When asked open ended questions at work, a lot of people will end up on tangents trying to make sure they explain clearly, include all relevant info, and provide context.
Technically yes, but not close to the level of a trump tangent. Shark batteries being the most recent example I can think of off the top of my head. Which by the way was not relevant info. If I started saying something to that level in a meeting my boss would immediately cut me off and ask if there’s a point to what I’m saying. My clients would probably kick me off the account since they wouldn’t trust I know what I’m doing.
People that do get so off track typically aren’t viewed as the high performers, at least in an office setting.
Sure, I can agree people go on tangents. I go on tangents or rants when I'm educating others on nursing stuff. I might do it to provide clarification or emphasis.
Trumps rants and tangents add NOTHING to the orginial thought--it's just more lunacy on top of what was already an incoherent thought. I can appreciate you trying to normalize his behavior, but the content of his behavior is not normal. No normal person makes the mistake of saying we won the Revolutionary War because we controlled all the airports.
How many "open-ended" questions do you think will actually be asked during the debate? Do you consider "Will you accept the results of the 2024 election?" an open-ended question? Seems like it should be a simple yes or no answer.
>because that's how normal people speak
I know a lot of bullshitters who love to ramble and hear themselves talk. Trump goes beyond them. He's like the barflies I used to hang out with on dollar taco day at Big City Tap: passionate, prone to rants and emotional outbursts, but incapable of sticking with a train of thought long enough to bring it to a conclusion.
Like...yes, sometimes people talk like that. The problem is, that's usually something your parents would teach you not to do while speaking in public. Trump's just a rich celebrity, so we collectively pretend it's normal.
Seasoned politicians aren’t the only people who know how to stay on topic. Think about CEOs at shareholder meetings, lecturing teachers/professors, regular employees presenting their work, me talking to my wife. If you can’t stay on topic you don’t have the competency for basic life skills.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>no pre-written notes and no campaign aide interaction during the debate.
This going to hurt Biden more considering he's incapable of forming a complete sentence without someone holding his hand.
Regardless, this should be some entertaining television
>This going to hurt Biden more considering he's incapable of forming a complete sentence without someone holding his hand.
A) Why do you believe this is the case for Biden?
B) Why do you feel this is NOT the case for "boat battery shark" Trump?
>This going to hurt Biden more considering he's incapable of forming a complete sentence without someone holding his hand
Could the same not be said of Trump? Biden knows to just shut up, Trump HAS to rant like a lunatic
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible."
Trump speaks in a lot of non sequiturs, which some people aren't able to keep up with, but it's all coherent and makes sense.
Also, reading a transcript is much different than seeing a live speaker.
The problem is the frequency of Trump’s non sequiturs. Trump’s fanbase loves to claim that he just talks like ordinary people do, but that’s simply not true for most of us.
For as much as Trump fans claim to despise politicians, Trump embodies the worst caricature there is of one.
Refuses to answer challenging questions in a direct and forthright way - check.
Gives cartoonishly oversimplified answers to complex problems - check
Doesn’t even pretend to care about anyone outside of his base - check
Brimming with venal self-regard - check
He’s like the final form of the American politician.
Buddy, I don't know what you consider a logical train of thought, but Trump is infamous for just stumbling into something completely unrelated in the middle of a rant.
Do yourself a favor: never watch him speak. Read his transcripts. He's charismatic, so in the moment he can sound more coherent than he actually is. Transcripts make it clear how much his mind wanders and how bizarre his behavior actually is.
“Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, it had nothing but victory,” he said.
Sure, it's logical if stating we won the Revolutinary War, but you are just being silly if you make these claims with a straight face.
“So there’s a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards or here. Do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking, and water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking. Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?”
This is crap I expect from a 6 year old
Just thought I'd add that Fort McHenry and the rockets red glare is from the war of 1812, when the British were unable to force American soldiers from the fort during the battle of Baltimore.
So Trump confuses the Revolutionary War with the War of 1812 and just does his brain vomit whenever he glitches.
I personally think you're drinking a lot of red-colored Kool-Aid and calling it cherry.
Biden and Trump are both older candidates than I'd like, but very strongly believe that Biden requires a lot less hand-holding to stay on point than Trump does.
“So I said, ‘Let me ask you a question, and said, ‘Nobody ever asked this question,’ and it must be because of MIT, my relationship to MIT —very smart. He goes, I say, ‘What would happen if the boat sank from its weight? And you’re in the boat and you have this tremendously powerful battery and the battery is now underwater and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there?’ By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately, do you notice that, a lot of sharks? I watched some guys justifying it today. ‘Well, they weren’t really that angry. They bit off the young lady’s leg because of the fact that they were, they were not hungry, but they misunderstood what who she was.’ These people are crazy. He said there’s no problem with sharks. ‘They just didn’t really understand a young woman swimming now.’ It really got decimated and other people do a lot of shark attacks. So I said, so there’s a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards or here, do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking? Water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking. Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted, or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted? Because I will tell you, he didn’t know the answer. He said, ‘You know, nobody’s ever asked me that question.” I said, ‘I think it’s a good question.’ I think there’s a lot of electric current coming through that water. But you know what I’d do if there was a shark or you get electrocuted, I’ll take electrocution every single time. I’m not getting near the shark. So we’re going to end that.”
What about the fake-shark-battery story he told when his teleprompters weren't working was logical or followed a train of thought? It was nothing more than a stream of consciousness with no basis in reality.
He seemed quite fine when on stage without a teleprompter while talking with Kimmel and Obama at an LA fundraiser. He did pretty well at the last SOTU address, even when ad-libbing and responding to hecklers.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.
He has his speech written out for him in BIG letters, and there's also a teleprompter for the SOTU -- it's the clear tilted glass in front of him on either side, slightly raised. It can't be read from the other side, it just looks clear, but it's visible to him.
[https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/164EB/production/\_128517319\_gettyimages-1238865034.jpg.webp](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/164EB/production/_128517319_gettyimages-1238865034.jpg.webp)
I think the debate will be an unhelpful shit show and will convince few undecided people to vote for either the geriatric narcissist or the geriatric dementia patient.
This could be a pivotal moment for Trump if he would just SHUT UP. Don't take smarmy potshots, answer the questions thoughtfully, have sharp and precise rebuttals when Biden starts waxing rhapsodic about the economy. Be a statesman, not a bully. He can win no points beating up on a mentally and physically frail old man. Stay away from Jan 6, rebut his conviction with "the case is being appealed, as is my right as a citizen of this country, and this is not the venue to re-try it." Talk about what he is going to do to make our country a better place, and give people a reason to vote FOR him, instead of in spite of him.
Lack of audience and mic cutting is definitely bad for Trump.
I don't think audience adds any substance to debate, I don't care about that.
I oppose the mic-cutting thing kind of, but I do think sometimes it's necessary.
My biggest problem with these debates isn't the weird rules, it's the biased moderators.
This will hurt Biden far more than Trump. It might decrease Trump's momentum because he tends to get into a rhythm and build up but I doubt it would be a significant hindrance either. Trump will want to argue though.
>No live studio audience, standing candidates at uniform podiums, muted mikes when it's not their turn to speak, no pre-written notes and no campaign aide interaction during the debate.
I'm fine with no audience. I don't think there should be one to begin with. These events have dipped too far into the realms of entertainment and I welcome the chance to bring back to the realm of serious debate. Candidates have typically always stood at podiums and I doubt either will have issue with that. The last two are going to hurt Biden badly. This is where the gaffe machine is going to come out and the fact checkers are going to be taking notes.
>Is this going to expose Trump's weakness as a public speaker?
Trump isn't a weak public speaker to begin with. He's not a great orator by any stretch of the mind but he has no issue with public speaking either and that's apparent from his many appearances, interviews, and rallies.
>Will the conservative community accept it as shown, or claim some kind of detrimental to Trump editing is taking place?
Of course, and this sort of deflection is a left wing defense anyway. Recently the Press Secretary embarrassed herself using this on unedited videos of Biden looking lost on different public stages. So, you may want to ask the left.
1) Letting Biden attempt to talk without interruption will be good for Trump. It will show how incompetent Biden is.
2) These are not debates so the moderators can skew the questions against Trump.
>1) Letting Biden attempt to talk without interruption will be good for Trump. It will show how incompetent Biden is.
Why do you think this? His last big moment to speak publicly (SOTU) went so well, the right kept making up the excuse that Biden was on upper drugs.
>2) These are not debates so the moderators can skew the questions against Trump.
Like what kinds of questions?
Did it go well? I thought it was a train wreck -- it wasn't a SOTU speech, it was a campaign speech from an angry old man. And there was no way he wasn't on some sort of "pep pills".
Most non-conservative outlets called it a big success, and a "fiery kick in the pants" of sorts. Not perfect, but showing enthusiasm and vigor amid concerns of age.
https://apnews.com/article/state-of-union-biden-gaza-ukraine-israel-1a42ff9d4ef3e0f2753e43ac8d39fc18
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2024-03-08/fiery-biden-takes-on-trump-in-state-of-the-union-address
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-state-union-address-2024-rcna142240
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/politics/takeaways-joe-biden-state-of-the-union-address/index.html
Many conservative outlets ran or repeated stories about Biden being on drugs to explain his energy and enthusiasm.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/04/04/trump-suggests-without-evidence-biden-was-higher-than-a-kite-during-state-of-the-union-calls-for-pre-debate-drug-test/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/no-juicing-joe-republican-proposes-bill-response-bidens-decline-full-display
https://youtube.com/shorts/DlqT3XF0s1Q?si=wAsqWw6hn5XYXpyS (Hannity segment)
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/gop-rep-biden-jacked-drugs-184717812.html
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/8/dr-carole-lieberman-forensic-psychiatrist-sees-sig/
So why doesn't THAT vigorous, "kick in the pants" president show up for just about anything else? To show up fiery and angry for one speech and to mumble and stumble through everything else on his agenda can't help but give rise to speculation such as drugs, etc. It's such an anomaly. One SOTU speech, carefully crafted and staged, does not a Presidency make.
He does. But Fox and conservative media refuse to report on it. And when they do, they selectively edit in order to further their own bullshit narratives. This literally just happened multiple times in less than a week.
G7 clip: [https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.34X9326](https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.34X9326)
Mayorkas name: [https://x.com/BidenHQ/status/1803514299081695377](https://x.com/BidenHQ/status/1803514299081695377)
For all the complaints of MAGA world on how Trump is reported, at least his stupidity is irreconcilable with reality, so nobody really contests it when he blathers on about the stupidest shit imaginable (see: boat battery shark). But for Joe, they have to specifically invent ways to misrepresent everything he does, because for the most part, he's just a boring, unremarkable, career politician who does boring and unremarkable things.
1. Biden reading from a teleprompter especially after practicing for a week is not the same as an extemporanious debate where he doesn't know the questions and can't have notes. In almost every public setting where he speaks he uses notes. He hasn't held a news conference ever where questions were unscripted and he rarely answers unscripted questions.
2. If you have to ask you would not see the bias. One example is asking Trump why his tax cuts increased the deficit (they didn't) and then asking Biden what he will do to reduce the deficit. (raise taxes)
If Biden does well, I look forward to more excuses.
Reducing tax income without reducing spending will increase deficits
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/
Do you have an actual bad question in mind? Like who won the 2020 presidential election? Or will you be able to vote as a Florida resident and felon? Because it's illegal for felons to vote in Florida? Why would you need these questions be off the table? And why should Trump get a pass to not be asked about his preposterously unique situations, all of which are the result of his own choices and actions?
Sorry, Your Americanprogress citation flies in the face of reality. Notice that they obfuscate the FACT that revenue INCREASED after the Trump Tax Cut by couching it as a percentage of GDP.
Revenue doesn't increase the deficit and debt especially when it is increasing, SPENDING does. To make the discussion about revenue and ignore spending is dishonest and intentionally deceptive.
Asking a question that intentionally deceptive is dishonest and bad faith.
>Asking a question that intentionally deceptive is dishonest and bad faith.
Like what?
"Who won the 2020 election?"
"Since you're a convicted felon, how do you plan to vote, given that your resident state of Florida makes it illegal for felons to vote?"
"Because you were found liable in a court of law for decades of tax fraud, how can we trust your financial plans as president?"
"Since nearly all of your previous cabinet members and/or campaign associates are either themselves criminals or refuse to endorse you, how do you plan to staff your White House, if you win again?"
A lot of these will be framed as deceptive, dishonest, or bad faith. But that's just because Trump and a lot of his followers don't want to deal with reality. This is the reality Trump has made for himself.
And it seems like he, and his supporters, will cry foul on anything that isn't a softball question.
Complete BS. I'll take these one at a time
1) Who won the 2020 election? Who cares? Who Trump thinks won on 2020 is irrelevant to what he is going to do as President going forward. That is what this debate is supposed to elicit.
2) How do you plan to vote? Also irrelevant to what he will do as President. It is intended to be able to say "you are a convicted felon" He won't be when his conviction is overturned. Also do you know what the laws are in FL and whether a convicted person on appeal can vote? In Florida, if an appeal has been taken from a judgment of guilty in the trial court, that conviction does not become final until the judgment of the lower court has been finally affirmed by the appellate courts. Bad faith question
3) "Because you were found liable in a court of law for decades of tax fraud, how can we trust your financial plans as president?" The President has very little impact on the finances of the country. Congress appropriates the spending. Bad faith argument especially since the fraud case will also be overturned as a vilolation of the 6th Amendment and selective prosecution.
4) "Since nearly all of your previous cabinet members and/or campaign associates are either themselves criminals or refuse to endorse you, how do you plan to staff your White House. Disingenuous. There are large numbers of staffers who would work for him again and many many Trump supporters who who welcome the opportunity to serve Donal Trump as President.
Has nothing to do with his ability to govern or what his goals and objectives are for the country.
Your ability to come up with this list shows that you don't want to know how Trump will govern. Your TDS has you so jaded that all you care about is to selectively bring up issues that have nothing to do with what this debate is supposed to be about which is the future.
>Who won the 2020 election? Who cares? Who Trump thinks won on 2020 is irrelevant to what he is going to do as President going forward. That is what this debate is supposed to elicit.
It matters because Trump and MAGA Republicans have been selling the lie that Biden is not a legitimately elected president. And have been sowing doubt on the sanctity of our elections the entire time. All while also acting behind the scenes to specifically overturn an election he lost (which many involved are facing criminal prosecution for). Seems relevant to me.
>How do you plan to vote? Also irrelevant to what he will do as President. It is intended to be able to say "you are a convicted felon" He won't be when his conviction is overturned. Also do you know what the laws are in FL and whether a convicted person on appeal can vote? In Florida, if an appeal has been taken from a judgment of guilty in the trial court, that conviction does not become final until the judgment of the lower court has been finally affirmed by the appellate courts. Bad faith question
Florida has seemingly [gone out of its way](https://www.propublica.org/article/in-florida-the-gutting-of-a-landmark-law-leaves-few-felons-likely-to-vote) to make sure Felons can't vote, as well as make it nearly impossible (or at least prohibitively difficult) for those who *do* meet the stringent requirements to restore voting rights. [If they even can.](https://www.usvotefoundation.org/voting-rights-restoration/florida) But don't worry! Ron DeSantis has made sure to produce a [two-tiered justice system](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/31/desantis-says-trump-can-still-vote-in-florida-despite-felony-conviction-00161128) that will allow Trump to vote. Why is it bad faith to point that out?
>"Because you were found liable in a court of law for decades of tax fraud, how can we trust your financial plans as president?" The President has very little impact on the finances of the country. Congress appropriates the spending. Bad faith argument especially since the fraud case will also be overturned as a vilolation of the 6th Amendment and selective prosecution.
The president is responsible for submitting a budget to Congress, as well as lobbying and prioritizing specific items (usually stuff they campaigned on, or wants in order to appease base). Why would it be considered inappropriate or bad faith to call attention to the fact that he lies and cooks his books when it comes to numbers? I guess because he doesn't do the nitty gritty calculations (and leaves that to others)? Either way, shouldn't we have faith in our president that they are honest people who don't repeatedly commit fraud? What does 6th amendment have to do with anything? Either way, if a handful of prosecuted draft dodgers out of thousands couldn't prove selective prosecution, I doubt Trump will either. No 6A violation. Just a criminal caught doing crimes, and no longer protected by an AG who [continuously meddled in that and other cases.](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/nyregion/geoffrey-berman-william-barr-michael-cohen.html) Seems fair game to bring up.
>"Since nearly all of your previous cabinet members and/or campaign associates are either themselves criminals or refuse to endorse you, how do you plan to staff your White House. Disingenuous. There are large numbers of staffers who would work for him again and many many Trump supporters who who welcome the opportunity to serve Donal Trump as President.
The company the President keeps also speaks volumes to his values, priorities, character, judgement, and decision making. Considering how many lifelong professionals won't support him, and a long list of them are now criminals themselves... seems like a relevant reflection on his ability to choose people to work with. And it's a fair question to ask, considering he will likely forego career experts for MAGA loyalists. Which in of itself is something mainstream audiences may not be familiar with (and deserve to know).
>Your TDS has you so jaded that all you care about is to selectively bring up issues that have nothing to do with what this debate is supposed to be about which is the future.
The mainstream American public, who is not tuned in to the daily lunacy of Trump's antics, deserve to see how unhinged and criminally compromised he is. He has enjoyed living in a bubble the last four years, and many people go out of their way to NOT engage with him whatsoever. So his rampant corruption and incoherent lunacy is something general audiences may have forgotten about (or younger voters have never seen). It's worthwhile to make sure voters have a complete picture before voting. That justification of making sure voters have information is why he's currently a criminal in the first place.
But the long and short of it is, if he wants to run for the most important and powerful office in the world, he should be scrutinized for all of his criminal and corrupt actions, in addition to his blithering incompetence.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I need you to show me where Trump's tax cuts "didn't" increase the deficit. Where are the hard number facts? EVERY single expert of have seen had stated that those tax cuts increased the deficit. Some will try and explain that the pandemic made them less effective than intended, but that doesn't mean that those tax cuts didn't increase the deficit.
Go to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service and look at the revenue collected numbers [https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/](https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/) You will see that every year after the 2017 TCJA (including 2018 which only had 9 months of tax curs) revenue INCREASED. By 2023 Revenue had increased by 47%. How do you increase the deficit if you increase revenue? By increasing spending more than the revenue increased. All of the increase in the deficit since 2017 has been from increased spending.
Many of these so-called experts use static scoring and speculation based on the mistaken assumption that lowered tax rates lowers revenue when the opposite happens in reality. As you reduce the incentive to shelter income less income is shelterd and more is taxed. As you lower corporate taxes you increase economic activity. More people work more income is taxed.
It is just math.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nice try but your Brookings article did not offer any actual revenue numbers. It is all estimates based on previous static analysis. I got my numbers directly from the US Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service. [https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/](https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/)Here they are
2017 Prior to TCJA Revenue $3.32 Trillion
2018 9 mo of TCJA Revenue $3.33 Trillion
2019 Revenue $3.46 Trillion
2020 Revenue $3.42 Trillion
2021 Revenue $4.05 Trillion
2022 Revenue $4.9 Trillion
2023 Revenue $4.7 Trillion
As you can see revenue increased every year since the tax cut over 2017. The only reason deficits increased is because spending increased MORE than the revenue increased. It is not difficult. It is just math.
The rate of inflation was 5.6% from 2017 to 2020. If revenue had stayed the same, then 3.32 trillion in 2017 would equal 3.51 trillion in 2020. Trump's tax cuts couldn't keep up with inflation, meaning that we made less money.
The rate of inflation was 17.7% from 2020 to 2023. If revenue stayed the same, then 3.42 trillion in 2020 would equal 4.03 trillion in 2023. Biden has managed to raise revenue beyond the inflation rate, meaning that we made more money.
It is just math.
Nope sorry. Inflation was NOT 5.6% during the Trump years and was NOT 17.7% during the Biden years, Inflation inder Trump was 1.9% Inflation under Biden was 5.5%
The metric you want to look at is not inflation it is economic growth. During the Trump years economic growth was a cumulative 4.71% due to Covid. During the Biden years Economic growth was 14.39. So overall the economy grew 19% over 8 years and revenue grew 47%. How do you explain that?
BTW Biden didn't raise any revenue. The revenue increases were still the result of Trump's Tax Cuts
First, you just linked the [fiscal.treasury.gov](http://fiscal.treasury.gov) home page. Not any page that actually shows any numbers. So you still haven't provided a source for your data.
Second, to determine whether a given piece of legislation increased or decreased the deficit, you have to compare it to what we would have had had the legislation never been passed. You can't just say "We had $3.46T of revenue after the Trump tax cuts, clearly that means they didn't add to the deficit" - maybe we would have had $4T or $5T or $6T of revenue if the tax cuts hadn't been passed.
It's not difficult. It's just common sense.
You clearly have trouble with math. The deficit is a simple calculation Revenue less spending. If you spend more than revenue you have a deficit. Whether it increases or decreases is simple math. What comes in, what goes out. It has nothing to do with legislation.
Putting aside the deficit for a minute. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased revenue. That is a FACT. I posted the numbers above. If I found them you can find them. Some of the increase could have come from economic growth but the numbers are the numbers. You can say woulda, coulda, shoulda all day long but Revenue is what you collect not what you wish we had collected.
Now add the deficit. The deficit is the result of spending more than revenue you collected PERIOD. If you collect $100 in revenue and spend $110 you have a $10 deficit. So if revenue is increasing and the deficit is also increasing then spending must be exceeding the revenue growth. It was spending growth that increased the deficits NOT the Tax Cuts.
>If I found them you can find them.
That's not how citing sources works. I'm not going to go digging around on a website looking for numbers you *claim* are there. You should link directly to what you're talking about.
If you disagree, here's my source that shows how that's not part of reasonable good faith debate: [www.google.com](http://www.google.com)
>The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased revenue. That is a FACT.
You clearly have trouble with logic. This is an example of post-hoc reasoning, a logical fallacy.
[https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/post-hoc-fallacy/](https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/post-hoc-fallacy/)
Revenue increased in the years following the 2017 TCJA. That doesn't mean that the TCJA caused that revenue increase. It could have been due to other factors. Again, it's entirely possible that the TCJA actually *decreased* revenue - but total revenue still increased in the years that followed it because of said other factors.
That is why the analysis I linked is just that - analysis. Not an oversimplified view of things.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased revenue. That is a FACT.
What other factors do you propose increased revenue? I am just using math. The revenue increased. The defict increased too. Logic tells me you can't increase revenue AND increase deficits without INCREASING SPENDING. Prove me wrong.
>The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased revenue. That is a FACT.
Okay cool, so if it's a fact you should be able to prove it. How will you prove that the TCJA caused the revenue increase and not something else?
60 % of the country doesn’t want either of these two clowns in office. My opinion is this election will be low in voter turnout and a win for Trump. But my god people please demand better.
>Letting Biden attempt to talk without interruption will be good for Trump. It will show how incompetent Biden is.
Presumably, when Biden does well in the debate, we'll be told (yet again) that he must've been on drugs, or was being fed the answers.
Of course, it's extremely unlikely Trump actually shows up for the debate. He'll very likely do what he's done before- complain the rules are somehow unfair to him, then scurry off to a friendly media outlet to host a "town hall" at the same time as the debate, and claim he won.
No pre-written notes and no campaign aide interaction during the debate.
Is this going to expose Trump's weakness as a public speaker? Will the conservative community accept it as shown, or claim some kind of detrimental to Trump editing is taking place?I
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.
Biden not having notes or a teleprompter is going to be interesting. He got through the SOTU address because no one interrupted him and he had the speech in front of him. The slightest derailment during a so-called debate will expose his mental state for all to see.
Do you think also applies to Trump? Just last week his teleprompter stopped working and he told a fake story that made no sense about a boat sinking and batteries and sharks.
It might, but Trump has conducted long form interviews without script or notes as recent as weeks ago.
Biden has not been reliant on that senile noggin of his for years. It would be interesting to see how he does.
Trump just needs to shut up and let Biden cook. He will bury himself
>conducted long form interviews without script or notes as recent as weeks ago.
So he will repeat the 2020 debates and just talk in circles, giving a non-answer and dodging the question? Peak performance 👍
Same could be said of either of them. Let Trump bring up Hannibal Lecter or airports during the Revolutionary war. If I were Biden I would definitely let Trump run wild.
Any concerns about Trump's simplistic and circular speaking style not holding up well when asked for policy specifics?
What are Trump's followups if asked the Whys and Hows to statements like "Russia would never have invaded Ukraine if I were President" or "I could end the Ukraine war in 24 hours"?
I’m not a fan of the simplistic circular talk; but clueless boomers like it. Most undecided voters are boomers.
Anyone who knows anything about policies or the outcomes they actually want to see have long made up their minds
Weird copy paste. Trump should just let Biden talk anyway. Once the drugs wear off, I'm sure Biden will say some wild things. The hosts are both anti-Trump, which is bad for Trump. We also know Biden's bar will be so low, that him not dyeing during the debate will be seen as a win.
>drugs
Oh, this again. Why isn't Biden mainlining these miracle drugs constantly, and given Trump's history of erratic behavior, not to mention the infamously lax prescription standards in his WH, how do you know he isn't on just as many drugs?
Trump can talk to people without a teleprompter, Biden rarely does this. If he does it's from friendly reporters. Biden lives in a massive bubble where he gives virtually zero interviews, not in Whitehouse often and doesn't take questions.
[This is Trump in a gun store recently, Biden could not do this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7YIJuuyZbY).
>Once the drugs wear off
Could you opine on what kind of drugs Biden is on? Rep. Byron Donalds and Rep. Greg Murphy have both claimed Biden was on drugs at the SOTU, and Murphy even claimed he had evidence, but neither have shown any evidence or said which drugs it would be.
If you'll indulge me, here is an interview / debate between Liberal YouTuber David Pakman and Fox News host Will Cain. At 9min 40sec they bring up the "Biden on drugs" thing, and Pakman makes some pretty good points about it.
[https://youtu.be/u7L-B\_BQ13g?si=ZMC6KHnra9\_\_fP7P&t=580](https://youtu.be/u7L-B_BQ13g?si=ZMC6KHnra9__fP7P&t=580)
>Adderall and Ritalin work 4-6 hours. The idea that Bryon Donalds presented on your channel that by the end of a 1 hour speech he's fading... not how Adderall and Ritalin work. And Adderall and Ritalin famously don't cover up cognitive decline. And when there is cognitive decline, can generate anxiety and more difficulty speaking. So Adderall and Ritalin wouldn't do what you're suggesting. Provigil has a 12-15 hour duration, so again like Byron Donalds goes "you can tell 'cause it wears off at the end of an hour" it doesn't work that way, and also Provigil's effect on dementia is zero.
>In order to say it's not an absurd suggestion you have to at least plausibly bring a specific substance known to man that would do what is being alleged. Which is it would take someone suffering from cognitive decline who struggles to even understand what he's saying and make them coherent in the way that it is being described.
So based on that, are you able to suggest which drugs Biden might be on?
> So based on that, are you able to suggest which drugs Biden might be on?
The state of the union he was screaming into the mic. He slowed down as the hour went on. Which makes sense if he's taking some kind of upper. He typical whispers and mumbles to point it's not even coherent. [Biden talking two weeks ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuSSYXluB3U). This is usually how he sounds. [Biden full of energy at the SOTU, weirdly energetic. Even talking much faster then normal](https://youtu.be/al7ont2noYA?t=1320)
Sure, he probably had some extra energy. We've seen him drink orange Gatorade recently, and I am sure he was well rested and prepared for the SOTU rather than speaking off the cuff after a busy day. And yeah, he is pretty old, so he probably gets tired after speaking an hour straight.
But sure, let's grant you the case that he is given uppers of some kind, whether that is just coffee or some drug of some sort.
What do you mean by "once the drugs wear off, I'm sure Biden will say some wild things"? What kind of wild things? The current official narrative is that Biden has severe dementia and doesn't know where he is and can't even put two sentences together... but was given some sort of drug that made him perfectly cognizant and coherent for about an hour at the SOTU.
Do you reject that narrative, and only think he is given some assistance with energy since he is old, but is otherwise perfectly capable of speaking and having his wits about him?
> What do you mean by "once the drugs wear off, I'm sure Biden will say some wild things"?
For one he makes up stories every time he tries to reach into his past. From being a truck driver, a civil rights fighter and a law professor for 10 years and many other odd stories.
**What drugs, and what do they do?** I'm sorry to double reply but you just kinda sailed past everything Pakman/the OP pointed out about the "drugs" narrative.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Big difference between a *performer* and a public speaker. When most people are qualitatively describing public speaking, they are normally talking about articulation and communication ability, wordplay, etc., all used to coherently relay a complex, but *comprehensive* message or point to a receptive audience.
There's a *huge* difference between riffing (going off script, whipping up a crowd using simple catch-phrases and trigger words, and then tailing the effects to build it up more) and articulation of complex information, which Trump certainly does not and cannot do.
He's a *performer* - or entertainer, at best, not a public speaker. That's really evident because it's been proven several times already that he's a fraud and far different from what he portrays and merely *says*, and he was even an actor *playing a role* on a "reality" TV show.
"It's been proven"...
You're right, Trump is a terrible public speaker. If he could only learn how to connect with those massive crowds at his rallies that often exceed 30,000 people. Maybe as they enter the stadiums and go though scanners they get hypnotized? I mean, I wouldn't put anything past Trump. It sounds like you're some sort of public speaking coach. Do you have any tips for him? Should he try to make more eye contact? Maybe his pacing could be improved? I know his humor needs some work. Again, maybe if he could learn to be a better speaker, he might be able to connect with Americans. This is worrisome, especially in light of the fact that Biden is, perhaps, one of the most dynamic public speakers since Walter Mondale.
Entertainers connect with their crowds on some euphoric or spiritual level, but that doesn't mean they're saying something especially meaningful and in an articulate way. All it means is that they have something relatable or in common with each other and meet each other on a specific wavelength.
> Do you have any tips for him? Should he try to make more eye contact? Maybe his pacing could be improved?
Sure. He could stand to learn and *care* a LOT more about several subject matters the particular kind public speaker he's aiming to be (POTUS) tends to require. It's kind of embarrassing when the foremost person on all mattters of a particular subject can only riff, distract from and meander off the cuff about them, even though he might seem entertaining while doing so. Being shameless and not taking *anything* seriously allows the entertainment part to be pretty easy, especially for people who don't care or know much about the subject matter(s) themselves, anyway.
Subject matter experts tend to be very good public speakers because they are fluent and very knowledgeable in the subject(s) they are speaking about, and also have a keen ability to inform and explain those subjects to other, less informed laypeople who have an interest or investment in that knowledge shared.
Captivating a crowd through performance isn't the same thing - it's just entertaining them, often in a manner like glittery things do, or a magician does where they dazzle and wow a crowd with smoke and mirrors, or with typical bullshit they are already expecting and/or want or *paid* to see and hear.
> maybe if he could learn to be a better speaker, he might be able to connect with Americans.
Too bad that doesn't seem very possible or likely for a 78 year-old "billionaire" who's been surrounded by yesmen his whole life. Maybe we should move on from his efforts.
> This is worrisome, especially in light of the fact that Biden is, perhaps, one of the most dynamic public speakers since Walter Mondale.
Maybe he is, maybe he's not, but as a politician of more than 40 years, he's at least got subject expertise he could walk all over Trump with - in his sleep, or even when he has articulation lapses much like Trump seems to have, himself.
I am predicting a shit show but I doubt anyone will be surprised by it. I am fine with all the rules except the lack of a live audience but I understand why the Biden campaign does not want it because I think it favor Trump more than Biden.
Debates in their current form are kind of stupid to me. While I like the idea of cutting off mics giving a candidate a couple minutes to articulate views on complex issues is just stupid. I also think this is one debate that is somewhat pointless because I think almost everyone has already decided how they are going to vote and already know what they are getting from each candidate. That said I plan to watch for pure entertainment value alone.
>I also think this is one debate that is somewhat pointless because I think almost everyone has already decided how they are going to vote
Politically engaged people, sure. Independents or new voters haven't made up their mind yet
>Is this going to expose Trump's weakness as a public speaker?
What planet are you living on? Trump fills stadiums & fields easily and his speaking has electrified, coalesced, and deeply touched millions of people for going on a decade now. He's one of the most gifted public speakers of the century. He just has that public-speaking magic, that it-factor, like no other politician in America right now.
>Will the conservative community accept it as shown, or claim some kind of detrimental to Trump editing is taking place?
That'd be more apt to ask Dems, who when confronted with unedited, wide shot videos of Biden being completely lost, are claiming it's all deep fakes and editing. Telling us straight up things didn't happen that we all can see did happen. Then turning around and insisting a clip with half a dozen jump cuts, angle switches, drastic zoom outs so far you cannot see it, are the authoritative accounts.
If this is true then why is trump and his team already giving excuses for why drop is going to lose the debate? Trump is saying that he might just lose the debate on purpose. Lara, don jr, hannity all saying that this won’t be the normal Joe, this will be the state of the union Joe hopped up on of drugs. They don’t sound very confident.
>If this is true then why is trump and his team already giving excuses for why drop is going to lose the debate?
Quote it.
> Trump is saying that he might just lose the debate on purpose.
See above.
> Lara, don jr, hannity all saying that this won’t be the normal Joe, this will be the state of the union Joe hopped up on of drugs. They don’t sound very confident.
Your logic does not follow. It's like an underdog sports player or fighter and their team adjusting expectations before any game. It does not logically follow that this positioning proves they are bad players or fighters regardless of any record that stands otherwise.
Why does the most basic stuff constantly need to be explained to leftwingers?
“Maybe I’m better off losing the debate. I’ll make sure he stays. I’ll lose the debate on purpose. Maybe I’ll do something like that.” Trump
If he loses it’s because he did it on purpose.
They need to adjust expectations because they have been lying about Joe having dementia so now they have to lie about him taking secret anti dementia drugs because they are worried about well he’s going to do. It’s just like saying the election is rigged before it even happens to make excuses for losing.
If a boxer wants to adjust expectations or get credit for a victory he says that the other guy is great and talented opponent and it’s going to be a tough challenge. He doesn’t say oh well he’s going to be using steroids and cheating so it’s not going to be fair. It’s because they are insecure, worried and making up excuses. I shouldn’t have to explain this to right wingers.
>“Maybe I’m better off losing the debate. I’ll make sure he stays. I’ll lose the debate on purpose. Maybe I’ll do something like that.” Trump If he loses it’s because he did it on purpose.
Sounds like strategy talk to keep Biden from getting booted before Nov, which in no way disproves what I've said about Trump and his results for a decade now.
>They need to adjust expectations because they have been lying about Joe having dementia so now they have to lie about him taking secret anti dementia drugs because they are worried about well he’s going to do. It’s just like saying the election is rigged before it even happens to make excuses for losing. If a boxer wants to adjust expectations or get credit for a victory he says that the other guy is great and talented opponent and it’s going to be a tough challenge. He doesn’t say oh well he’s going to be using steroids and cheating so it’s not going to be fair.
This sounds like just making up "rules" however you see fit to get to a certain conclusion. Something I can read on AskLiberals or r_Politics anytime I want. Thanks, but no thank you.
Biden is not getting booted that’s so silly just lake Michelle Obama isn’t going to be the nominee. He’s preparing excuses.
No I’m not making up rules this is how it goes. He’s using steroids, he cheated, I was injured are excuses for losing. You couldn’t win because it wasn’t fair it was rigged. Saying someone is a tough challenge makes your victory have value. Watch sports and fighting and you’ll see the difference. Trump team is preparing the excuse train because they feel they have already lost by agreeing to Biden’s terms.
>He’s preparing excuses.
Naw. He's being savvy. Hitting 4 birds with one stone. Insulting his competitor, managing expectations, displaying strategic thinking, and making his listeners feel like they're in on the game. And all in one line!
I love it.
>No I’m not making up rules this is how it goes. He’s using steroids, he cheated, I was injured are excuses for losing. You couldn’t win because it wasn’t fair it was rigged. Saying someone is a tough challenge makes your victory have value. Watch sports and fighting and you’ll see the difference. Trump team is preparing the excuse train because they feel they have already lost by agreeing to Biden’s terms.
No one can stop you from full Negative Nancying everything. It's you brain to manage.
I let him win is something that losers say. He’s preparing everyone for his loss with a built in excuse. It’s classic Trump: I only keep losing because everything is rigged and everyone is cheating. The juries, the judges, the elections and now the debates, Biden is taking secret drugs to make him extra sharp and needs to be drug tested and oh I let him win because I’m being nice to the guy who last time we debated I kept yelling over him and calling his son a crack head. It’s funny being called negative Nancy by people who think everything is rigged against them because it’s just all so unfair.
You definitely have skewed opinion of gifted public speakers. Ronald Reagan was a GIFTED public speaker, I've yet to see a trump speech where he strung TWO coherent thoughts together. Trump's only gifted to you because he says the quiet part out loud and normalizes the worst thoughts of humanity.
“Yet to see a Trump speech”
Then you haven’t been paying attention.
Dude, I’m not even a Trump fan and that’s complete nonsense.
Are you here for literally any reason than to trash conservatives, trash Trump and tell everyone we’re wrong?
I voted for Trump in 2016, because he said he'd return industry and cut regulations (neither happened) I'm not trashing conservatives, and I pay attention to all political speeches. Biden is no prize, Trump has a tendency to become incoherent and tangential during his speeches. Filling stadiums doesn't mean you're a good speaker, it just means you've convinced enough people that your views are the same.
>You definitely have skewed opinion of gifted public speakers.
No I just have eyeballs and a rational mind that can step back and observe Trump fills stadiums and strikes a far deeper chord with people via his public speaking than anyone else currently on the stage. And that indicates there's true magic there.
Anyone objective can see it, and acknowledge it.
He has consumed and dominated this entire era by the public speaking he does.
His words light people's minds on fire, and engages their deepest feelings whether for or against.
>Ronald Reagan was a GIFTED public speaker, I've yet to see a trump speech where he strung TWO coherent thoughts together.
Haters are gonna hate. And such hate blinds one from seeing that Trump is objectively an electrifying, gifted, magical speaker that no one on the scene today has been able to match, whether you love him or not.
> Trump's only gifted to you because he says the quiet part out loud and normalizes the worst thoughts of humanity.
No, that would be Obama, Hollywood, Universities, and all the Dem-captured institutions.
Trump is objectively not a good speaker. How can you listen to his ‘shark vs battery’ story with your “rational mind”, and land on the conclusion that this politician can legitimately be compared to past presidents? Then again, this post may be all sarcasm, it’s hard to tell sometimes.
>Trump is objectively not a good speaker.
This is like saying Jordan or LeBron or Jokic are not good basketball players just because you don't like their style, personality, or team. Just totally bypassing their results.
It's obvious motivated "reasoning."
>How can you listen to his ‘shark vs battery’ story with your “rational mind”, and land on the conclusion that this politician can legitimately be compared to past presidents?
Cherry-picking tiny events out of 10 years of public speaking is like pointing out a poor shot in an off-season pick-up game in 1984 from Michael Jordan and trying to say this "proves" he was a bad player.
It's moronic "reasoning."
>Then again, this post may be all sarcasm, it’s hard to tell sometimes.
Truth sounds funny to those accustomed to delusions.
The commercial breaks thing I wouldn't want. Trump had the stamina to stand and talk for that long, Biden doesn't. That's why they are giving breaks IMO.
I think the rules of the upcoming debate are a joke. The last thing they want is Joe Biden to be able to have a free form debate with someone. This will be the first time he’s interacted with someone non scripted in the first time in his presidency
He’s done a few town halls but we know he’s given the questions before and time to study.
Good for Biden.
Bad For Trump- controlling his microphone is going to get him flustered and he takes some time to get to his point anyways. I’m afraid he goes off on tangents and gets his mic turned off before he can answer properly.
>The last thing they want is Joe Biden to be able to have a free form debate with someone.
That's not what Trump does, though. We've seen Trump in other debates, and he's not there to debate. He's there to self-aggrandize, and will interrupt, stalk, loom, yell, and try to intimidate his opponents.
Also an excerpt from 6 minutes in[6:00](https://youtu.be/P69xdkqBJno?si=fOT-O8Y2zkTOMg9H)
Trump: I don’t know beau I know Hunter. And he brought in millions of dollars from China Ukraine
Biden: That is just not true!
Aged well lol
So... his firm took in millions. Wasn't it kinda his job to make the company money? And... well, what does this have to do with Joe?
Unless you think that we should look at how the children of Presidents make their money... I'd be all for that, there are three ex-Presidential kids who seemed to make a pretty big profit while their father was in the White House...
It's odd, then, that the Republicans keep failing to impeach Biden, given this no doubt sterling source. Maybe you should let them know they missed something?
One of the Presidential candidates has never failed to release his taxes so you can look over his finances yourself. The other one kept saying he would, but never did. Care to guess which is which?
Here’s a hypothetical: June 28th rolls around. You just witnessed Biden display seriously scary behavior. Highly forgetful, hands in the air waving like he don’t care, long pauses- Like Blatant in your face signs of impairment..
Does it affect your vote?
Honestly? Not really. Most of a President's job is to hire good people, and then listen to their advice. Biden showed that he's pretty good at that. Trump showed that he's pretty damn awful at it- how many of his appointments were temporary so they didn't have to be approved? How many of his appointments ended up working for other countries? And it's not like Trump heeded their advice, anyway- he's pretty notorious for having to always be "the smartest guy in the room."
And if it comes down to Biden wearing his underwear on his head vs multiple-felon Trump, I'd rather have the guy who at least isn't a criminal.
But since this is "askconservatives", my turn. If Trump bails on the debate, will you still vote for him? If he shows (more) signs of impairment, will you still vote for him?
I just hope it all closely resembles the [Shane Gillis](https://youtu.be/0Vx8E4kg1bo?si=6QxsKVl07rQ4irF_) take on it.
ETA: Some of ya'll need a sense of humor...
I’m sure there are plenty of these types on the left, I just happened to have grown up with an example from the right and it was exhausting? like it’s entertainment dude;
1. It doesn’t have to perfectly envelope a persons entire world view to be entertaining and non offensively enjoyable. Nor does that make it a woke attack on your entire sense of self.
2. Can I just fucking watch, for an example, Finding Nemo without needing a debrief at the end on how liberal media is trying to push an agenda that objective reality doesn’t exist? Can I just enjoy some cute wholesome fish drama for 90 or so minutes? Lol.
Edited to add: I agree lmao and sorry tangeted in your general direction, but absolutely not at you, for a moment
No worries. Stand-ups say stuff all the time that I don't necessarily agree with politically, but I can still recognize it is funny. Wish more people would learn to laugh at themselves. At least ignore what they don't like and not try to prevent others from enjoying it.
Really bad. Trump has way too much pent up rage and will be very very easily baited by Biden. Biden is senile most of the time and slurs his words practically every sentence but I think his hate of Trump will give him that extra boost.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it's both good and bad for Trump. It's good in that cutting Trump off and not allowing him to go on another 'shark vs battery' rant is beneficial to him. The more the public hears of Trump's delusional thoughts and are reminded just how weird he is, the less the public will want to vote for him. But it's bad in that being told he cannot talk will irk him like a 5 year old in time out. If he's repeatedly told 'no' and 'be quiet someone else is talking' he could well be unable to control himself and have an outburst on stage. I've seen many of his recent interviews and he looks like shit, cannot keep a single thought in his head, and truly sounds even more deranged than normal, something I thought he'd already maxed out. I imagine Trump will go on at least 1 rant about the 2020 election.
> I imagine Trump will go on at least 1 rant about the 2020 election. He has to know he's going to be asked if he accepts the results of the 2020 election and when he can't say yes he's going to be asked why there is no evidence and then it's off to the races. That plus what is he going to say about the Jan. 6 riot on congress that the Dems won't later play over video showing violence?
this is a perfectly fair question to ask, in fact perhaps the most vital one on most people's minds. If you are not a hardcore trumpista the one thing you want to know if you are trying to decide if you can tolerate Trump long enough to vote for him is whether you think he fully intends to create mass civic disorder even in the event of a clear and legitimate loss.
This is honestly a major fear among moderate liberals in my experience (and personally). He has shown he is willing to use power and influence to make discord if it means getting his way, and that is legit frightening. It’s why I can’t even consider voting for him no matter how concerned I am for Biden’s salience.
I hope he brings up Hannibal Lecter again.
And Biden can tell us a heart-warming story about how cannibals ate his uncle.
Hypothetically, if they cooked him first, one could say it was in fact "Heart warming."
😂
Ya, like how fucking weird is it that this guy has brought up *Hannibal Lecter* several times?
Wait, several times?
Or that he thinks Lecter, or at the very least Hopkins or Mikkelsen, are dead? "the late, great Hannibal Lecter"
Clearly he was talking about Gaspard Ulliel!
> The great Alphonse Capone
All of this is good for voters to see how much of an unhinged lunatic Trump is.
He will break the rules like in every other debate he's ever been in and Fox news will say it's a sign of strength and call him a winner.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, Biden's public doesn't seem put off by having Biden's handlers manhandling on and off stages, etc., so maybe Trump's won't, either. ;)
Do you have an example? It’s not abnormal for a president to have “handlers” especially if they are visiting . I’m willing to check out an example though!
They may have handlers, but they don't grab their hand, like Obama did, to lead them away at the Juneteenth celebration. And his wife is constantly at his side, directing him here and there. Did Laura Bush or Hilary Clinton every lead their husbands around? Nope. That scene of him being led away from the D-Day celebration by Jill was just . . . sad. Usually when handlers are managing the primary, it's along the lines of hurrying him to his next appointment and not letting the primary get caught in the weeds of handshaking, etc. Not gently leading them away from the event.
>The more the public hears of Trump's delusional thoughts and are reminded just how weird he is, the less the public will want to vote for him. I actually don't think this is true. I think the public has heard more than enough examples of his delusional thoughts spanning throughout his entire political account, albeit more frequently now due to his age and clear declining mental state. All that being said, I think the more conservatives back off of Trump, the smaller the community gets. Likewise, the "devolution into delusion" only becomes more concentrated and compact, and in turn becomes more vehement and vocal. When more people leave Trump's inner circle, his followers have to become LOUDER to compensate for the loss of noise and keep themselves present. I think Trump knows this pattern very well and feeds into it in order to keep his ship floating.
Shark vs battery?
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1799895088354804183 He sounds like a drunk at the local dive bar.
Are you planning on voting for Trump? Edit : nm Canadian. Would you, though?
There is never a moment in my entire life that I have ever considered voting for Trump or anyone like him. It's so blatantly obvious that he is the stupidest person in existence. His entire political career is built on being a reality tv show host and claiming Obama was not an America but a Kenyan Muslim communist. It's pathetic.
Through the transitive property it doesn't seem like you think much of American conservatives. Would you even be considered a conservative by American standards?
Trump's a bad candidate, but that doesn't say much about conservative ideals.
There's nothing to be said about conservative values that someone as odious as you describe is their champion?
I don't think conservative values produced Trump. He represents something else.
American conservatives chose him. Presumably because he represents their values. Isn't that what a presidential candidate is? >He represents something else. What?
This comment might get deleted, but I think he represents anger and disillusionment with the mainstream more than he represents actual conservatism. I think some conservatives on this sub would agree with that, but not everyone.
> American conservatives chose him. There are quite a few conservatives on this subreddit that like to say the GOP isn't a conservative party and/or Trump isn't conservative it's just the party/president that conservatives vote for cause the other option are the Democrats/biden. Whether you buy that or not is up to you.
🫡
The lack of an audience is good for the human species, and probably some aliens if they're actually hiding on the other side of the moon. Not sure if it's necessarily in Trump's favor though. Otherwise, the only rule that seems out of the ordinary is the muted mic while not on the clock. That one is a bit of a curiosity. I recall reading it would be a rule in past debates (not presidential) and in effect it seemed like there was no rule at all (maybe the issue was the other candidates' microphones worked well enough to pick up the chatter). But maybe that's all in my head. On balance I expect it to help Biden. He's a lot cooler than Trump and his spontaneous facial expressions are more friendly and relatable.
Muted microphone is probably due to prior actions of Mr Trump always trying to shout down the person whose turn it is to answer. Nothing curious there.
Dude, come on. Jackasses yelling over each other has been televised debates since I was in diapers. The mute button has been an idea that whole time. And like I said, I really do think it's been tried before and did nothing.
That just means you're younger than me, I remember when debates were a group of civilized statesmen answering and rebutting questions on the issues. It never devolved into shouting over each other or name calling.
Wow, that's awesome. I can't really imagine it, but that sure sounds nice.
Won't the muted mic concept just fuel more of his members that "They're silencing him!"
So, I'd like to first say that I did stop and give your question some thought, but I'm including this preamble because it might not seem so from my answer: Yes. Follow up question for you: do you think this will make the "they're silencing him!" problem substantially worse?
Since I couldn't post it in the original question. No live studio audience, standing candidates at uniform podiums, muted mikes when it's not their turn to speak, no pre-written notes and no campaign aide interaction during the debate. Is this going to expose Trump's weakness as a public speaker? Will the conservative community accept it as shown, or claim some kind of detrimental to Trump editing is taking place?
I mean, I don’t really have any issue with the rules in general. Trump always had a tendency to go on tangents (because that really is how normal people speak, not seasoned politicians tho), so he definitely needs to keep that in mind. He needs to keep reminding himself “I shan’t mince words!”
> Trump always had a tendency to go on tangents (because that really is how normal people speak, not seasoned politicians tho) When you're working do you go on meandering tangents? I rarely do and never to a degree that I would call Trumpian.
And as a side note, when asked a question the answer always has to do with the topic asked not some other subject that I would rather bring up.
I'd argue this is bad for Trump because some of his debate tactics involve tangents and one-liners for applause. You take away the audience, Biden's dry humor comes across better and Trump's bombastics don't hit as hard. You take away the tangents, and suddenly Trump can't flood the zone with rambling. He has to get to the point, and frankly I don't think he has consistent views on a lot of things. He won't do good with that.
No tangent will ever beat [Herschel Walker talking about if a werewolf can kill a Vampire.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEStZIMs29k)
I'm rarely called upon to expound extemporaneuously in a situation where any little thing I say could be used against me. Politicians do not talk like normal people becasue we will not let them. If they made the kind of statements that people make in real life those could be used in bad faith against them. Example: the reason Bush fumbled the famous "fool me once" quote is that he realized about 2 seconds to late that the words "shame on me" exiting his mouth would be edited in bad-faith ways to hurt him and it was better to look like an idiot than give them the ammo.
How about we hold them to the same standard of honesty that normal people are in their everyday lives. Maybe then they wouldn't be as inclined to just tell us what they think we want to hear at that particular moment.
Yes. When asked open ended questions at work, a lot of people will end up on tangents trying to make sure they explain clearly, include all relevant info, and provide context.
Technically yes, but not close to the level of a trump tangent. Shark batteries being the most recent example I can think of off the top of my head. Which by the way was not relevant info. If I started saying something to that level in a meeting my boss would immediately cut me off and ask if there’s a point to what I’m saying. My clients would probably kick me off the account since they wouldn’t trust I know what I’m doing. People that do get so off track typically aren’t viewed as the high performers, at least in an office setting.
Sure, I can agree people go on tangents. I go on tangents or rants when I'm educating others on nursing stuff. I might do it to provide clarification or emphasis. Trumps rants and tangents add NOTHING to the orginial thought--it's just more lunacy on top of what was already an incoherent thought. I can appreciate you trying to normalize his behavior, but the content of his behavior is not normal. No normal person makes the mistake of saying we won the Revolutionary War because we controlled all the airports.
How many "open-ended" questions do you think will actually be asked during the debate? Do you consider "Will you accept the results of the 2024 election?" an open-ended question? Seems like it should be a simple yes or no answer.
>because that's how normal people speak I know a lot of bullshitters who love to ramble and hear themselves talk. Trump goes beyond them. He's like the barflies I used to hang out with on dollar taco day at Big City Tap: passionate, prone to rants and emotional outbursts, but incapable of sticking with a train of thought long enough to bring it to a conclusion. Like...yes, sometimes people talk like that. The problem is, that's usually something your parents would teach you not to do while speaking in public. Trump's just a rich celebrity, so we collectively pretend it's normal.
Seasoned politicians aren’t the only people who know how to stay on topic. Think about CEOs at shareholder meetings, lecturing teachers/professors, regular employees presenting their work, me talking to my wife. If you can’t stay on topic you don’t have the competency for basic life skills.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>no pre-written notes and no campaign aide interaction during the debate. This going to hurt Biden more considering he's incapable of forming a complete sentence without someone holding his hand. Regardless, this should be some entertaining television
>This going to hurt Biden more considering he's incapable of forming a complete sentence without someone holding his hand. A) Why do you believe this is the case for Biden? B) Why do you feel this is NOT the case for "boat battery shark" Trump?
>This going to hurt Biden more considering he's incapable of forming a complete sentence without someone holding his hand Could the same not be said of Trump? Biden knows to just shut up, Trump HAS to rant like a lunatic
>Trump HAS to rant like a lunatic When Trump rants, it's in complete sentences and follows a logical train of thought, though
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible."
Trump speaks in a lot of non sequiturs, which some people aren't able to keep up with, but it's all coherent and makes sense. Also, reading a transcript is much different than seeing a live speaker.
The problem is the frequency of Trump’s non sequiturs. Trump’s fanbase loves to claim that he just talks like ordinary people do, but that’s simply not true for most of us. For as much as Trump fans claim to despise politicians, Trump embodies the worst caricature there is of one. Refuses to answer challenging questions in a direct and forthright way - check. Gives cartoonishly oversimplified answers to complex problems - check Doesn’t even pretend to care about anyone outside of his base - check Brimming with venal self-regard - check He’s like the final form of the American politician.
Buddy, I don't know what you consider a logical train of thought, but Trump is infamous for just stumbling into something completely unrelated in the middle of a rant. Do yourself a favor: never watch him speak. Read his transcripts. He's charismatic, so in the moment he can sound more coherent than he actually is. Transcripts make it clear how much his mind wanders and how bizarre his behavior actually is.
> When Trump rants, it's in ~~complete~~ run-on sentences.
“Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, it had nothing but victory,” he said. Sure, it's logical if stating we won the Revolutinary War, but you are just being silly if you make these claims with a straight face. “So there’s a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards or here. Do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking, and water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking. Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?” This is crap I expect from a 6 year old
Just thought I'd add that Fort McHenry and the rockets red glare is from the war of 1812, when the British were unable to force American soldiers from the fort during the battle of Baltimore. So Trump confuses the Revolutionary War with the War of 1812 and just does his brain vomit whenever he glitches.
I personally think you're drinking a lot of red-colored Kool-Aid and calling it cherry. Biden and Trump are both older candidates than I'd like, but very strongly believe that Biden requires a lot less hand-holding to stay on point than Trump does.
Trump supporters will bend over backwards and do the wildest mental gymnastics to play defense for him. Logical train of thought? Are you mad?
“So I said, ‘Let me ask you a question, and said, ‘Nobody ever asked this question,’ and it must be because of MIT, my relationship to MIT —very smart. He goes, I say, ‘What would happen if the boat sank from its weight? And you’re in the boat and you have this tremendously powerful battery and the battery is now underwater and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there?’ By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately, do you notice that, a lot of sharks? I watched some guys justifying it today. ‘Well, they weren’t really that angry. They bit off the young lady’s leg because of the fact that they were, they were not hungry, but they misunderstood what who she was.’ These people are crazy. He said there’s no problem with sharks. ‘They just didn’t really understand a young woman swimming now.’ It really got decimated and other people do a lot of shark attacks. So I said, so there’s a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards or here, do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking? Water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking. Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted, or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted? Because I will tell you, he didn’t know the answer. He said, ‘You know, nobody’s ever asked me that question.” I said, ‘I think it’s a good question.’ I think there’s a lot of electric current coming through that water. But you know what I’d do if there was a shark or you get electrocuted, I’ll take electrocution every single time. I’m not getting near the shark. So we’re going to end that.”
What about the fake-shark-battery story he told when his teleprompters weren't working was logical or followed a train of thought? It was nothing more than a stream of consciousness with no basis in reality.
You have to be joking, right?
He seemed quite fine when on stage without a teleprompter while talking with Kimmel and Obama at an LA fundraiser. He did pretty well at the last SOTU address, even when ad-libbing and responding to hecklers.
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.
>SOTU address Didn't Biden postpone the one super long?
He has his speech written out for him in BIG letters, and there's also a teleprompter for the SOTU -- it's the clear tilted glass in front of him on either side, slightly raised. It can't be read from the other side, it just looks clear, but it's visible to him. [https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/164EB/production/\_128517319\_gettyimages-1238865034.jpg.webp](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/164EB/production/_128517319_gettyimages-1238865034.jpg.webp)
> while talking with Kimmel and Obama at an LA fundraiser I was talking about this for the lack of teleprompter.
If the debate happened and Biden was shown to be able to make decent points from start to finish, would you re-assess this opinion?
RemindMe! June 28, 2024
I think the debate will be an unhelpful shit show and will convince few undecided people to vote for either the geriatric narcissist or the geriatric dementia patient.
On that, we're on the same page.
The 2024 election when you see whose running... you'll run to.
This could be a pivotal moment for Trump if he would just SHUT UP. Don't take smarmy potshots, answer the questions thoughtfully, have sharp and precise rebuttals when Biden starts waxing rhapsodic about the economy. Be a statesman, not a bully. He can win no points beating up on a mentally and physically frail old man. Stay away from Jan 6, rebut his conviction with "the case is being appealed, as is my right as a citizen of this country, and this is not the venue to re-try it." Talk about what he is going to do to make our country a better place, and give people a reason to vote FOR him, instead of in spite of him.
Maybe if he was a completely different person I guess? I mean Id probably vote for the candidate you’ve made up in your comment.
And monkeys will fly out of my butt, lol. It's not in his nature to do those things.
Lack of audience and mic cutting is definitely bad for Trump. I don't think audience adds any substance to debate, I don't care about that. I oppose the mic-cutting thing kind of, but I do think sometimes it's necessary. My biggest problem with these debates isn't the weird rules, it's the biased moderators.
This will hurt Biden far more than Trump. It might decrease Trump's momentum because he tends to get into a rhythm and build up but I doubt it would be a significant hindrance either. Trump will want to argue though. >No live studio audience, standing candidates at uniform podiums, muted mikes when it's not their turn to speak, no pre-written notes and no campaign aide interaction during the debate. I'm fine with no audience. I don't think there should be one to begin with. These events have dipped too far into the realms of entertainment and I welcome the chance to bring back to the realm of serious debate. Candidates have typically always stood at podiums and I doubt either will have issue with that. The last two are going to hurt Biden badly. This is where the gaffe machine is going to come out and the fact checkers are going to be taking notes. >Is this going to expose Trump's weakness as a public speaker? Trump isn't a weak public speaker to begin with. He's not a great orator by any stretch of the mind but he has no issue with public speaking either and that's apparent from his many appearances, interviews, and rallies. >Will the conservative community accept it as shown, or claim some kind of detrimental to Trump editing is taking place? Of course, and this sort of deflection is a left wing defense anyway. Recently the Press Secretary embarrassed herself using this on unedited videos of Biden looking lost on different public stages. So, you may want to ask the left.
1) Letting Biden attempt to talk without interruption will be good for Trump. It will show how incompetent Biden is. 2) These are not debates so the moderators can skew the questions against Trump.
>1) Letting Biden attempt to talk without interruption will be good for Trump. It will show how incompetent Biden is. Why do you think this? His last big moment to speak publicly (SOTU) went so well, the right kept making up the excuse that Biden was on upper drugs. >2) These are not debates so the moderators can skew the questions against Trump. Like what kinds of questions?
Did it go well? I thought it was a train wreck -- it wasn't a SOTU speech, it was a campaign speech from an angry old man. And there was no way he wasn't on some sort of "pep pills".
Most non-conservative outlets called it a big success, and a "fiery kick in the pants" of sorts. Not perfect, but showing enthusiasm and vigor amid concerns of age. https://apnews.com/article/state-of-union-biden-gaza-ukraine-israel-1a42ff9d4ef3e0f2753e43ac8d39fc18 https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2024-03-08/fiery-biden-takes-on-trump-in-state-of-the-union-address https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-state-union-address-2024-rcna142240 https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/politics/takeaways-joe-biden-state-of-the-union-address/index.html Many conservative outlets ran or repeated stories about Biden being on drugs to explain his energy and enthusiasm. https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/04/04/trump-suggests-without-evidence-biden-was-higher-than-a-kite-during-state-of-the-union-calls-for-pre-debate-drug-test/ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/no-juicing-joe-republican-proposes-bill-response-bidens-decline-full-display https://youtube.com/shorts/DlqT3XF0s1Q?si=wAsqWw6hn5XYXpyS (Hannity segment) https://sg.news.yahoo.com/gop-rep-biden-jacked-drugs-184717812.html https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/8/dr-carole-lieberman-forensic-psychiatrist-sees-sig/
So why doesn't THAT vigorous, "kick in the pants" president show up for just about anything else? To show up fiery and angry for one speech and to mumble and stumble through everything else on his agenda can't help but give rise to speculation such as drugs, etc. It's such an anomaly. One SOTU speech, carefully crafted and staged, does not a Presidency make.
He does. But Fox and conservative media refuse to report on it. And when they do, they selectively edit in order to further their own bullshit narratives. This literally just happened multiple times in less than a week. G7 clip: [https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.34X9326](https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.34X9326) Mayorkas name: [https://x.com/BidenHQ/status/1803514299081695377](https://x.com/BidenHQ/status/1803514299081695377) For all the complaints of MAGA world on how Trump is reported, at least his stupidity is irreconcilable with reality, so nobody really contests it when he blathers on about the stupidest shit imaginable (see: boat battery shark). But for Joe, they have to specifically invent ways to misrepresent everything he does, because for the most part, he's just a boring, unremarkable, career politician who does boring and unremarkable things.
1. Biden reading from a teleprompter especially after practicing for a week is not the same as an extemporanious debate where he doesn't know the questions and can't have notes. In almost every public setting where he speaks he uses notes. He hasn't held a news conference ever where questions were unscripted and he rarely answers unscripted questions. 2. If you have to ask you would not see the bias. One example is asking Trump why his tax cuts increased the deficit (they didn't) and then asking Biden what he will do to reduce the deficit. (raise taxes)
If Biden does well, I look forward to more excuses. Reducing tax income without reducing spending will increase deficits https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/ Do you have an actual bad question in mind? Like who won the 2020 presidential election? Or will you be able to vote as a Florida resident and felon? Because it's illegal for felons to vote in Florida? Why would you need these questions be off the table? And why should Trump get a pass to not be asked about his preposterously unique situations, all of which are the result of his own choices and actions?
Sorry, Your Americanprogress citation flies in the face of reality. Notice that they obfuscate the FACT that revenue INCREASED after the Trump Tax Cut by couching it as a percentage of GDP. Revenue doesn't increase the deficit and debt especially when it is increasing, SPENDING does. To make the discussion about revenue and ignore spending is dishonest and intentionally deceptive. Asking a question that intentionally deceptive is dishonest and bad faith.
>Asking a question that intentionally deceptive is dishonest and bad faith. Like what? "Who won the 2020 election?" "Since you're a convicted felon, how do you plan to vote, given that your resident state of Florida makes it illegal for felons to vote?" "Because you were found liable in a court of law for decades of tax fraud, how can we trust your financial plans as president?" "Since nearly all of your previous cabinet members and/or campaign associates are either themselves criminals or refuse to endorse you, how do you plan to staff your White House, if you win again?" A lot of these will be framed as deceptive, dishonest, or bad faith. But that's just because Trump and a lot of his followers don't want to deal with reality. This is the reality Trump has made for himself. And it seems like he, and his supporters, will cry foul on anything that isn't a softball question.
Complete BS. I'll take these one at a time 1) Who won the 2020 election? Who cares? Who Trump thinks won on 2020 is irrelevant to what he is going to do as President going forward. That is what this debate is supposed to elicit. 2) How do you plan to vote? Also irrelevant to what he will do as President. It is intended to be able to say "you are a convicted felon" He won't be when his conviction is overturned. Also do you know what the laws are in FL and whether a convicted person on appeal can vote? In Florida, if an appeal has been taken from a judgment of guilty in the trial court, that conviction does not become final until the judgment of the lower court has been finally affirmed by the appellate courts. Bad faith question 3) "Because you were found liable in a court of law for decades of tax fraud, how can we trust your financial plans as president?" The President has very little impact on the finances of the country. Congress appropriates the spending. Bad faith argument especially since the fraud case will also be overturned as a vilolation of the 6th Amendment and selective prosecution. 4) "Since nearly all of your previous cabinet members and/or campaign associates are either themselves criminals or refuse to endorse you, how do you plan to staff your White House. Disingenuous. There are large numbers of staffers who would work for him again and many many Trump supporters who who welcome the opportunity to serve Donal Trump as President. Has nothing to do with his ability to govern or what his goals and objectives are for the country. Your ability to come up with this list shows that you don't want to know how Trump will govern. Your TDS has you so jaded that all you care about is to selectively bring up issues that have nothing to do with what this debate is supposed to be about which is the future.
>Who won the 2020 election? Who cares? Who Trump thinks won on 2020 is irrelevant to what he is going to do as President going forward. That is what this debate is supposed to elicit. It matters because Trump and MAGA Republicans have been selling the lie that Biden is not a legitimately elected president. And have been sowing doubt on the sanctity of our elections the entire time. All while also acting behind the scenes to specifically overturn an election he lost (which many involved are facing criminal prosecution for). Seems relevant to me. >How do you plan to vote? Also irrelevant to what he will do as President. It is intended to be able to say "you are a convicted felon" He won't be when his conviction is overturned. Also do you know what the laws are in FL and whether a convicted person on appeal can vote? In Florida, if an appeal has been taken from a judgment of guilty in the trial court, that conviction does not become final until the judgment of the lower court has been finally affirmed by the appellate courts. Bad faith question Florida has seemingly [gone out of its way](https://www.propublica.org/article/in-florida-the-gutting-of-a-landmark-law-leaves-few-felons-likely-to-vote) to make sure Felons can't vote, as well as make it nearly impossible (or at least prohibitively difficult) for those who *do* meet the stringent requirements to restore voting rights. [If they even can.](https://www.usvotefoundation.org/voting-rights-restoration/florida) But don't worry! Ron DeSantis has made sure to produce a [two-tiered justice system](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/31/desantis-says-trump-can-still-vote-in-florida-despite-felony-conviction-00161128) that will allow Trump to vote. Why is it bad faith to point that out? >"Because you were found liable in a court of law for decades of tax fraud, how can we trust your financial plans as president?" The President has very little impact on the finances of the country. Congress appropriates the spending. Bad faith argument especially since the fraud case will also be overturned as a vilolation of the 6th Amendment and selective prosecution. The president is responsible for submitting a budget to Congress, as well as lobbying and prioritizing specific items (usually stuff they campaigned on, or wants in order to appease base). Why would it be considered inappropriate or bad faith to call attention to the fact that he lies and cooks his books when it comes to numbers? I guess because he doesn't do the nitty gritty calculations (and leaves that to others)? Either way, shouldn't we have faith in our president that they are honest people who don't repeatedly commit fraud? What does 6th amendment have to do with anything? Either way, if a handful of prosecuted draft dodgers out of thousands couldn't prove selective prosecution, I doubt Trump will either. No 6A violation. Just a criminal caught doing crimes, and no longer protected by an AG who [continuously meddled in that and other cases.](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/nyregion/geoffrey-berman-william-barr-michael-cohen.html) Seems fair game to bring up. >"Since nearly all of your previous cabinet members and/or campaign associates are either themselves criminals or refuse to endorse you, how do you plan to staff your White House. Disingenuous. There are large numbers of staffers who would work for him again and many many Trump supporters who who welcome the opportunity to serve Donal Trump as President. The company the President keeps also speaks volumes to his values, priorities, character, judgement, and decision making. Considering how many lifelong professionals won't support him, and a long list of them are now criminals themselves... seems like a relevant reflection on his ability to choose people to work with. And it's a fair question to ask, considering he will likely forego career experts for MAGA loyalists. Which in of itself is something mainstream audiences may not be familiar with (and deserve to know). >Your TDS has you so jaded that all you care about is to selectively bring up issues that have nothing to do with what this debate is supposed to be about which is the future. The mainstream American public, who is not tuned in to the daily lunacy of Trump's antics, deserve to see how unhinged and criminally compromised he is. He has enjoyed living in a bubble the last four years, and many people go out of their way to NOT engage with him whatsoever. So his rampant corruption and incoherent lunacy is something general audiences may have forgotten about (or younger voters have never seen). It's worthwhile to make sure voters have a complete picture before voting. That justification of making sure voters have information is why he's currently a criminal in the first place. But the long and short of it is, if he wants to run for the most important and powerful office in the world, he should be scrutinized for all of his criminal and corrupt actions, in addition to his blithering incompetence.
The left leaning media love to ask "gotcha " question to intentionally muddle the debate,
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I need you to show me where Trump's tax cuts "didn't" increase the deficit. Where are the hard number facts? EVERY single expert of have seen had stated that those tax cuts increased the deficit. Some will try and explain that the pandemic made them less effective than intended, but that doesn't mean that those tax cuts didn't increase the deficit.
Go to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service and look at the revenue collected numbers [https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/](https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/) You will see that every year after the 2017 TCJA (including 2018 which only had 9 months of tax curs) revenue INCREASED. By 2023 Revenue had increased by 47%. How do you increase the deficit if you increase revenue? By increasing spending more than the revenue increased. All of the increase in the deficit since 2017 has been from increased spending. Many of these so-called experts use static scoring and speculation based on the mistaken assumption that lowered tax rates lowers revenue when the opposite happens in reality. As you reduce the incentive to shelter income less income is shelterd and more is taxed. As you lower corporate taxes you increase economic activity. More people work more income is taxed. It is just math.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-tcja-affect-federal-budget-outlook](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-tcja-affect-federal-budget-outlook)
Nice try but your Brookings article did not offer any actual revenue numbers. It is all estimates based on previous static analysis. I got my numbers directly from the US Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service. [https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/](https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/)Here they are 2017 Prior to TCJA Revenue $3.32 Trillion 2018 9 mo of TCJA Revenue $3.33 Trillion 2019 Revenue $3.46 Trillion 2020 Revenue $3.42 Trillion 2021 Revenue $4.05 Trillion 2022 Revenue $4.9 Trillion 2023 Revenue $4.7 Trillion As you can see revenue increased every year since the tax cut over 2017. The only reason deficits increased is because spending increased MORE than the revenue increased. It is not difficult. It is just math.
The rate of inflation was 5.6% from 2017 to 2020. If revenue had stayed the same, then 3.32 trillion in 2017 would equal 3.51 trillion in 2020. Trump's tax cuts couldn't keep up with inflation, meaning that we made less money. The rate of inflation was 17.7% from 2020 to 2023. If revenue stayed the same, then 3.42 trillion in 2020 would equal 4.03 trillion in 2023. Biden has managed to raise revenue beyond the inflation rate, meaning that we made more money. It is just math.
Nope sorry. Inflation was NOT 5.6% during the Trump years and was NOT 17.7% during the Biden years, Inflation inder Trump was 1.9% Inflation under Biden was 5.5% The metric you want to look at is not inflation it is economic growth. During the Trump years economic growth was a cumulative 4.71% due to Covid. During the Biden years Economic growth was 14.39. So overall the economy grew 19% over 8 years and revenue grew 47%. How do you explain that? BTW Biden didn't raise any revenue. The revenue increases were still the result of Trump's Tax Cuts
First, you just linked the [fiscal.treasury.gov](http://fiscal.treasury.gov) home page. Not any page that actually shows any numbers. So you still haven't provided a source for your data. Second, to determine whether a given piece of legislation increased or decreased the deficit, you have to compare it to what we would have had had the legislation never been passed. You can't just say "We had $3.46T of revenue after the Trump tax cuts, clearly that means they didn't add to the deficit" - maybe we would have had $4T or $5T or $6T of revenue if the tax cuts hadn't been passed. It's not difficult. It's just common sense.
You clearly have trouble with math. The deficit is a simple calculation Revenue less spending. If you spend more than revenue you have a deficit. Whether it increases or decreases is simple math. What comes in, what goes out. It has nothing to do with legislation. Putting aside the deficit for a minute. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased revenue. That is a FACT. I posted the numbers above. If I found them you can find them. Some of the increase could have come from economic growth but the numbers are the numbers. You can say woulda, coulda, shoulda all day long but Revenue is what you collect not what you wish we had collected. Now add the deficit. The deficit is the result of spending more than revenue you collected PERIOD. If you collect $100 in revenue and spend $110 you have a $10 deficit. So if revenue is increasing and the deficit is also increasing then spending must be exceeding the revenue growth. It was spending growth that increased the deficits NOT the Tax Cuts.
>If I found them you can find them. That's not how citing sources works. I'm not going to go digging around on a website looking for numbers you *claim* are there. You should link directly to what you're talking about. If you disagree, here's my source that shows how that's not part of reasonable good faith debate: [www.google.com](http://www.google.com) >The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased revenue. That is a FACT. You clearly have trouble with logic. This is an example of post-hoc reasoning, a logical fallacy. [https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/post-hoc-fallacy/](https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/post-hoc-fallacy/) Revenue increased in the years following the 2017 TCJA. That doesn't mean that the TCJA caused that revenue increase. It could have been due to other factors. Again, it's entirely possible that the TCJA actually *decreased* revenue - but total revenue still increased in the years that followed it because of said other factors. That is why the analysis I linked is just that - analysis. Not an oversimplified view of things.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased revenue. That is a FACT. What other factors do you propose increased revenue? I am just using math. The revenue increased. The defict increased too. Logic tells me you can't increase revenue AND increase deficits without INCREASING SPENDING. Prove me wrong.
>The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased revenue. That is a FACT. Okay cool, so if it's a fact you should be able to prove it. How will you prove that the TCJA caused the revenue increase and not something else?
60 % of the country doesn’t want either of these two clowns in office. My opinion is this election will be low in voter turnout and a win for Trump. But my god people please demand better.
>Letting Biden attempt to talk without interruption will be good for Trump. It will show how incompetent Biden is. Presumably, when Biden does well in the debate, we'll be told (yet again) that he must've been on drugs, or was being fed the answers. Of course, it's extremely unlikely Trump actually shows up for the debate. He'll very likely do what he's done before- complain the rules are somehow unfair to him, then scurry off to a friendly media outlet to host a "town hall" at the same time as the debate, and claim he won.
No pre-written notes and no campaign aide interaction during the debate. Is this going to expose Trump's weakness as a public speaker? Will the conservative community accept it as shown, or claim some kind of detrimental to Trump editing is taking place?I
I would think by now they’re well aware of Trumps weird behavior.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.
Biden not having notes or a teleprompter is going to be interesting. He got through the SOTU address because no one interrupted him and he had the speech in front of him. The slightest derailment during a so-called debate will expose his mental state for all to see.
Do you think also applies to Trump? Just last week his teleprompter stopped working and he told a fake story that made no sense about a boat sinking and batteries and sharks.
I predict a surplus of "C'mon, man!" exclamations when he loses his train of thought. :-)
It might, but Trump has conducted long form interviews without script or notes as recent as weeks ago. Biden has not been reliant on that senile noggin of his for years. It would be interesting to see how he does. Trump just needs to shut up and let Biden cook. He will bury himself
>conducted long form interviews without script or notes as recent as weeks ago. So he will repeat the 2020 debates and just talk in circles, giving a non-answer and dodging the question? Peak performance 👍
Same could be said of either of them. Let Trump bring up Hannibal Lecter or airports during the Revolutionary war. If I were Biden I would definitely let Trump run wild.
I really hope Trump does his homework and shows up calm and measured like he has been in some of the recent 1 on 1 interviews.
Which one on one videos do you recommend?
https://youtu.be/vdesd4QMAQs?si=25RktGDbmb28uwxE
His calmness will end the first time his microphone is cut off.
Any concerns about Trump's simplistic and circular speaking style not holding up well when asked for policy specifics? What are Trump's followups if asked the Whys and Hows to statements like "Russia would never have invaded Ukraine if I were President" or "I could end the Ukraine war in 24 hours"?
I’m not a fan of the simplistic circular talk; but clueless boomers like it. Most undecided voters are boomers. Anyone who knows anything about policies or the outcomes they actually want to see have long made up their minds
Weird copy paste. Trump should just let Biden talk anyway. Once the drugs wear off, I'm sure Biden will say some wild things. The hosts are both anti-Trump, which is bad for Trump. We also know Biden's bar will be so low, that him not dyeing during the debate will be seen as a win.
>drugs Oh, this again. Why isn't Biden mainlining these miracle drugs constantly, and given Trump's history of erratic behavior, not to mention the infamously lax prescription standards in his WH, how do you know he isn't on just as many drugs?
Trump can talk to people without a teleprompter, Biden rarely does this. If he does it's from friendly reporters. Biden lives in a massive bubble where he gives virtually zero interviews, not in Whitehouse often and doesn't take questions. [This is Trump in a gun store recently, Biden could not do this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7YIJuuyZbY).
Neat. Which drugs is Trump taking?
>Once the drugs wear off Could you opine on what kind of drugs Biden is on? Rep. Byron Donalds and Rep. Greg Murphy have both claimed Biden was on drugs at the SOTU, and Murphy even claimed he had evidence, but neither have shown any evidence or said which drugs it would be. If you'll indulge me, here is an interview / debate between Liberal YouTuber David Pakman and Fox News host Will Cain. At 9min 40sec they bring up the "Biden on drugs" thing, and Pakman makes some pretty good points about it. [https://youtu.be/u7L-B\_BQ13g?si=ZMC6KHnra9\_\_fP7P&t=580](https://youtu.be/u7L-B_BQ13g?si=ZMC6KHnra9__fP7P&t=580) >Adderall and Ritalin work 4-6 hours. The idea that Bryon Donalds presented on your channel that by the end of a 1 hour speech he's fading... not how Adderall and Ritalin work. And Adderall and Ritalin famously don't cover up cognitive decline. And when there is cognitive decline, can generate anxiety and more difficulty speaking. So Adderall and Ritalin wouldn't do what you're suggesting. Provigil has a 12-15 hour duration, so again like Byron Donalds goes "you can tell 'cause it wears off at the end of an hour" it doesn't work that way, and also Provigil's effect on dementia is zero. >In order to say it's not an absurd suggestion you have to at least plausibly bring a specific substance known to man that would do what is being alleged. Which is it would take someone suffering from cognitive decline who struggles to even understand what he's saying and make them coherent in the way that it is being described. So based on that, are you able to suggest which drugs Biden might be on?
> So based on that, are you able to suggest which drugs Biden might be on? The state of the union he was screaming into the mic. He slowed down as the hour went on. Which makes sense if he's taking some kind of upper. He typical whispers and mumbles to point it's not even coherent. [Biden talking two weeks ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuSSYXluB3U). This is usually how he sounds. [Biden full of energy at the SOTU, weirdly energetic. Even talking much faster then normal](https://youtu.be/al7ont2noYA?t=1320)
Sure, he probably had some extra energy. We've seen him drink orange Gatorade recently, and I am sure he was well rested and prepared for the SOTU rather than speaking off the cuff after a busy day. And yeah, he is pretty old, so he probably gets tired after speaking an hour straight. But sure, let's grant you the case that he is given uppers of some kind, whether that is just coffee or some drug of some sort. What do you mean by "once the drugs wear off, I'm sure Biden will say some wild things"? What kind of wild things? The current official narrative is that Biden has severe dementia and doesn't know where he is and can't even put two sentences together... but was given some sort of drug that made him perfectly cognizant and coherent for about an hour at the SOTU. Do you reject that narrative, and only think he is given some assistance with energy since he is old, but is otherwise perfectly capable of speaking and having his wits about him?
> What do you mean by "once the drugs wear off, I'm sure Biden will say some wild things"? For one he makes up stories every time he tries to reach into his past. From being a truck driver, a civil rights fighter and a law professor for 10 years and many other odd stories.
**What drugs, and what do they do?** I'm sorry to double reply but you just kinda sailed past everything Pakman/the OP pointed out about the "drugs" narrative.
Why do you think that is? What effect are the drugs having and what is the intended purpose of them?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You think Trump is a weak public speaker? SMH.
Big difference between a *performer* and a public speaker. When most people are qualitatively describing public speaking, they are normally talking about articulation and communication ability, wordplay, etc., all used to coherently relay a complex, but *comprehensive* message or point to a receptive audience. There's a *huge* difference between riffing (going off script, whipping up a crowd using simple catch-phrases and trigger words, and then tailing the effects to build it up more) and articulation of complex information, which Trump certainly does not and cannot do. He's a *performer* - or entertainer, at best, not a public speaker. That's really evident because it's been proven several times already that he's a fraud and far different from what he portrays and merely *says*, and he was even an actor *playing a role* on a "reality" TV show.
"It's been proven"... You're right, Trump is a terrible public speaker. If he could only learn how to connect with those massive crowds at his rallies that often exceed 30,000 people. Maybe as they enter the stadiums and go though scanners they get hypnotized? I mean, I wouldn't put anything past Trump. It sounds like you're some sort of public speaking coach. Do you have any tips for him? Should he try to make more eye contact? Maybe his pacing could be improved? I know his humor needs some work. Again, maybe if he could learn to be a better speaker, he might be able to connect with Americans. This is worrisome, especially in light of the fact that Biden is, perhaps, one of the most dynamic public speakers since Walter Mondale.
Entertainers connect with their crowds on some euphoric or spiritual level, but that doesn't mean they're saying something especially meaningful and in an articulate way. All it means is that they have something relatable or in common with each other and meet each other on a specific wavelength. > Do you have any tips for him? Should he try to make more eye contact? Maybe his pacing could be improved? Sure. He could stand to learn and *care* a LOT more about several subject matters the particular kind public speaker he's aiming to be (POTUS) tends to require. It's kind of embarrassing when the foremost person on all mattters of a particular subject can only riff, distract from and meander off the cuff about them, even though he might seem entertaining while doing so. Being shameless and not taking *anything* seriously allows the entertainment part to be pretty easy, especially for people who don't care or know much about the subject matter(s) themselves, anyway. Subject matter experts tend to be very good public speakers because they are fluent and very knowledgeable in the subject(s) they are speaking about, and also have a keen ability to inform and explain those subjects to other, less informed laypeople who have an interest or investment in that knowledge shared. Captivating a crowd through performance isn't the same thing - it's just entertaining them, often in a manner like glittery things do, or a magician does where they dazzle and wow a crowd with smoke and mirrors, or with typical bullshit they are already expecting and/or want or *paid* to see and hear. > maybe if he could learn to be a better speaker, he might be able to connect with Americans. Too bad that doesn't seem very possible or likely for a 78 year-old "billionaire" who's been surrounded by yesmen his whole life. Maybe we should move on from his efforts. > This is worrisome, especially in light of the fact that Biden is, perhaps, one of the most dynamic public speakers since Walter Mondale. Maybe he is, maybe he's not, but as a politician of more than 40 years, he's at least got subject expertise he could walk all over Trump with - in his sleep, or even when he has articulation lapses much like Trump seems to have, himself.
There's a difference between pandering, which Trump does, and being a good speaker, which Trump isn't.
Does that make all professional musicians public speakers?
I am predicting a shit show but I doubt anyone will be surprised by it. I am fine with all the rules except the lack of a live audience but I understand why the Biden campaign does not want it because I think it favor Trump more than Biden. Debates in their current form are kind of stupid to me. While I like the idea of cutting off mics giving a candidate a couple minutes to articulate views on complex issues is just stupid. I also think this is one debate that is somewhat pointless because I think almost everyone has already decided how they are going to vote and already know what they are getting from each candidate. That said I plan to watch for pure entertainment value alone.
>I also think this is one debate that is somewhat pointless because I think almost everyone has already decided how they are going to vote Politically engaged people, sure. Independents or new voters haven't made up their mind yet
>Is this going to expose Trump's weakness as a public speaker? What planet are you living on? Trump fills stadiums & fields easily and his speaking has electrified, coalesced, and deeply touched millions of people for going on a decade now. He's one of the most gifted public speakers of the century. He just has that public-speaking magic, that it-factor, like no other politician in America right now. >Will the conservative community accept it as shown, or claim some kind of detrimental to Trump editing is taking place? That'd be more apt to ask Dems, who when confronted with unedited, wide shot videos of Biden being completely lost, are claiming it's all deep fakes and editing. Telling us straight up things didn't happen that we all can see did happen. Then turning around and insisting a clip with half a dozen jump cuts, angle switches, drastic zoom outs so far you cannot see it, are the authoritative accounts.
If this is true then why is trump and his team already giving excuses for why drop is going to lose the debate? Trump is saying that he might just lose the debate on purpose. Lara, don jr, hannity all saying that this won’t be the normal Joe, this will be the state of the union Joe hopped up on of drugs. They don’t sound very confident.
>If this is true then why is trump and his team already giving excuses for why drop is going to lose the debate? Quote it. > Trump is saying that he might just lose the debate on purpose. See above. > Lara, don jr, hannity all saying that this won’t be the normal Joe, this will be the state of the union Joe hopped up on of drugs. They don’t sound very confident. Your logic does not follow. It's like an underdog sports player or fighter and their team adjusting expectations before any game. It does not logically follow that this positioning proves they are bad players or fighters regardless of any record that stands otherwise. Why does the most basic stuff constantly need to be explained to leftwingers?
“Maybe I’m better off losing the debate. I’ll make sure he stays. I’ll lose the debate on purpose. Maybe I’ll do something like that.” Trump If he loses it’s because he did it on purpose. They need to adjust expectations because they have been lying about Joe having dementia so now they have to lie about him taking secret anti dementia drugs because they are worried about well he’s going to do. It’s just like saying the election is rigged before it even happens to make excuses for losing. If a boxer wants to adjust expectations or get credit for a victory he says that the other guy is great and talented opponent and it’s going to be a tough challenge. He doesn’t say oh well he’s going to be using steroids and cheating so it’s not going to be fair. It’s because they are insecure, worried and making up excuses. I shouldn’t have to explain this to right wingers.
>“Maybe I’m better off losing the debate. I’ll make sure he stays. I’ll lose the debate on purpose. Maybe I’ll do something like that.” Trump If he loses it’s because he did it on purpose. Sounds like strategy talk to keep Biden from getting booted before Nov, which in no way disproves what I've said about Trump and his results for a decade now. >They need to adjust expectations because they have been lying about Joe having dementia so now they have to lie about him taking secret anti dementia drugs because they are worried about well he’s going to do. It’s just like saying the election is rigged before it even happens to make excuses for losing. If a boxer wants to adjust expectations or get credit for a victory he says that the other guy is great and talented opponent and it’s going to be a tough challenge. He doesn’t say oh well he’s going to be using steroids and cheating so it’s not going to be fair. This sounds like just making up "rules" however you see fit to get to a certain conclusion. Something I can read on AskLiberals or r_Politics anytime I want. Thanks, but no thank you.
Biden is not getting booted that’s so silly just lake Michelle Obama isn’t going to be the nominee. He’s preparing excuses. No I’m not making up rules this is how it goes. He’s using steroids, he cheated, I was injured are excuses for losing. You couldn’t win because it wasn’t fair it was rigged. Saying someone is a tough challenge makes your victory have value. Watch sports and fighting and you’ll see the difference. Trump team is preparing the excuse train because they feel they have already lost by agreeing to Biden’s terms.
>He’s preparing excuses. Naw. He's being savvy. Hitting 4 birds with one stone. Insulting his competitor, managing expectations, displaying strategic thinking, and making his listeners feel like they're in on the game. And all in one line! I love it. >No I’m not making up rules this is how it goes. He’s using steroids, he cheated, I was injured are excuses for losing. You couldn’t win because it wasn’t fair it was rigged. Saying someone is a tough challenge makes your victory have value. Watch sports and fighting and you’ll see the difference. Trump team is preparing the excuse train because they feel they have already lost by agreeing to Biden’s terms. No one can stop you from full Negative Nancying everything. It's you brain to manage.
I let him win is something that losers say. He’s preparing everyone for his loss with a built in excuse. It’s classic Trump: I only keep losing because everything is rigged and everyone is cheating. The juries, the judges, the elections and now the debates, Biden is taking secret drugs to make him extra sharp and needs to be drug tested and oh I let him win because I’m being nice to the guy who last time we debated I kept yelling over him and calling his son a crack head. It’s funny being called negative Nancy by people who think everything is rigged against them because it’s just all so unfair.
You definitely have skewed opinion of gifted public speakers. Ronald Reagan was a GIFTED public speaker, I've yet to see a trump speech where he strung TWO coherent thoughts together. Trump's only gifted to you because he says the quiet part out loud and normalizes the worst thoughts of humanity.
“Yet to see a Trump speech” Then you haven’t been paying attention. Dude, I’m not even a Trump fan and that’s complete nonsense. Are you here for literally any reason than to trash conservatives, trash Trump and tell everyone we’re wrong?
I voted for Trump in 2016, because he said he'd return industry and cut regulations (neither happened) I'm not trashing conservatives, and I pay attention to all political speeches. Biden is no prize, Trump has a tendency to become incoherent and tangential during his speeches. Filling stadiums doesn't mean you're a good speaker, it just means you've convinced enough people that your views are the same.
>You definitely have skewed opinion of gifted public speakers. No I just have eyeballs and a rational mind that can step back and observe Trump fills stadiums and strikes a far deeper chord with people via his public speaking than anyone else currently on the stage. And that indicates there's true magic there. Anyone objective can see it, and acknowledge it. He has consumed and dominated this entire era by the public speaking he does. His words light people's minds on fire, and engages their deepest feelings whether for or against. >Ronald Reagan was a GIFTED public speaker, I've yet to see a trump speech where he strung TWO coherent thoughts together. Haters are gonna hate. And such hate blinds one from seeing that Trump is objectively an electrifying, gifted, magical speaker that no one on the scene today has been able to match, whether you love him or not. > Trump's only gifted to you because he says the quiet part out loud and normalizes the worst thoughts of humanity. No, that would be Obama, Hollywood, Universities, and all the Dem-captured institutions.
Trump is objectively not a good speaker. How can you listen to his ‘shark vs battery’ story with your “rational mind”, and land on the conclusion that this politician can legitimately be compared to past presidents? Then again, this post may be all sarcasm, it’s hard to tell sometimes.
>Trump is objectively not a good speaker. This is like saying Jordan or LeBron or Jokic are not good basketball players just because you don't like their style, personality, or team. Just totally bypassing their results. It's obvious motivated "reasoning." >How can you listen to his ‘shark vs battery’ story with your “rational mind”, and land on the conclusion that this politician can legitimately be compared to past presidents? Cherry-picking tiny events out of 10 years of public speaking is like pointing out a poor shot in an off-season pick-up game in 1984 from Michael Jordan and trying to say this "proves" he was a bad player. It's moronic "reasoning." >Then again, this post may be all sarcasm, it’s hard to tell sometimes. Truth sounds funny to those accustomed to delusions.
The commercial breaks thing I wouldn't want. Trump had the stamina to stand and talk for that long, Biden doesn't. That's why they are giving breaks IMO.
I recommend you see an audiologist.
I think the rules of the upcoming debate are a joke. The last thing they want is Joe Biden to be able to have a free form debate with someone. This will be the first time he’s interacted with someone non scripted in the first time in his presidency He’s done a few town halls but we know he’s given the questions before and time to study. Good for Biden. Bad For Trump- controlling his microphone is going to get him flustered and he takes some time to get to his point anyways. I’m afraid he goes off on tangents and gets his mic turned off before he can answer properly.
>The last thing they want is Joe Biden to be able to have a free form debate with someone. That's not what Trump does, though. We've seen Trump in other debates, and he's not there to debate. He's there to self-aggrandize, and will interrupt, stalk, loom, yell, and try to intimidate his opponents.
Also an excerpt from 6 minutes in[6:00](https://youtu.be/P69xdkqBJno?si=fOT-O8Y2zkTOMg9H) Trump: I don’t know beau I know Hunter. And he brought in millions of dollars from China Ukraine Biden: That is just not true! Aged well lol
Maybe you'll have to explain what you mean by this, 'cause I'm certainly not getting your point.
[Hunter Bidens Hard Drive Shows 11 Million earned in Foreign Countries](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna29462) It’s just funny- Aged well
So... his firm took in millions. Wasn't it kinda his job to make the company money? And... well, what does this have to do with Joe? Unless you think that we should look at how the children of Presidents make their money... I'd be all for that, there are three ex-Presidential kids who seemed to make a pretty big profit while their father was in the White House...
[Joe Bidens links to Ukraine Business Dealings per oversight.house.gov](https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-timeline/)
It's odd, then, that the Republicans keep failing to impeach Biden, given this no doubt sterling source. Maybe you should let them know they missed something? One of the Presidential candidates has never failed to release his taxes so you can look over his finances yourself. The other one kept saying he would, but never did. Care to guess which is which?
Here’s a hypothetical: June 28th rolls around. You just witnessed Biden display seriously scary behavior. Highly forgetful, hands in the air waving like he don’t care, long pauses- Like Blatant in your face signs of impairment.. Does it affect your vote?
Honestly? Not really. Most of a President's job is to hire good people, and then listen to their advice. Biden showed that he's pretty good at that. Trump showed that he's pretty damn awful at it- how many of his appointments were temporary so they didn't have to be approved? How many of his appointments ended up working for other countries? And it's not like Trump heeded their advice, anyway- he's pretty notorious for having to always be "the smartest guy in the room." And if it comes down to Biden wearing his underwear on his head vs multiple-felon Trump, I'd rather have the guy who at least isn't a criminal. But since this is "askconservatives", my turn. If Trump bails on the debate, will you still vote for him? If he shows (more) signs of impairment, will you still vote for him?
I just hope it all closely resembles the [Shane Gillis](https://youtu.be/0Vx8E4kg1bo?si=6QxsKVl07rQ4irF_) take on it. ETA: Some of ya'll need a sense of humor...
Omg I’m CRYING, thank you so much for the share lmao. The part at the end with the dogs….*chefs kiss*
That whole special is pretty solid. He catches a lot of shit for not being PC, but that's just the world we live in.
I’m sure there are plenty of these types on the left, I just happened to have grown up with an example from the right and it was exhausting? like it’s entertainment dude; 1. It doesn’t have to perfectly envelope a persons entire world view to be entertaining and non offensively enjoyable. Nor does that make it a woke attack on your entire sense of self. 2. Can I just fucking watch, for an example, Finding Nemo without needing a debrief at the end on how liberal media is trying to push an agenda that objective reality doesn’t exist? Can I just enjoy some cute wholesome fish drama for 90 or so minutes? Lol. Edited to add: I agree lmao and sorry tangeted in your general direction, but absolutely not at you, for a moment
No worries. Stand-ups say stuff all the time that I don't necessarily agree with politically, but I can still recognize it is funny. Wish more people would learn to laugh at themselves. At least ignore what they don't like and not try to prevent others from enjoying it.
Really bad. Trump has way too much pent up rage and will be very very easily baited by Biden. Biden is senile most of the time and slurs his words practically every sentence but I think his hate of Trump will give him that extra boost.
Adding an anti-doping rule would surely benefit Trump.