Nowhere in the quote does he deny not reading that in the teleprompter. He simply says it was raining and and the end they shut down. This just helps support my other theory that the rain obscured what was written on the teleprompter.
Okay, whatever. If the teleprompter was working, and Trump read directly from it...that still means he never noticed the reference to airports when discussing the revolutionary war. Or Fort McHenry, which wasn't involved in the war at all (and wasn't called that at the time anyway).
Not much help there, I'm afraid.
What part of that speech do you have an issue with.?
I have no issue with it. It's completely nonsensical, and has no relation whatsoever to the question asked, or anything bordering on reality, but if that's the kind of thing you like in a candidate for president, you are perfectly free to vote for the guy.
I'm just responding to your criticism of Kamala Harris for being inarticulate, and showing you that her opponent can be even worse in that regard. How much value you place on that criteria is yours to consider.
Yes you should, the same way you take Biden's age into consideration.
Oh, I do take Trump's age into consideration when deciding not to vote for him. But, in the end, it's not as important as so many other reasons I have to not vote for him.
Do you thing Trump is also slowing down?
I think he's going backward, moving further and further away from reality every day.
Yes, they examine his behavior in the video.
So they haven't examined him personally, I take it? And you didn't mention whether or not they were experienced neurologists, or what their experience is regarding cognitive issues.
Just trying to determine if these are informed, educated, medical analyses, or just some internet yahoos with a YouTube account before I bother watching. If it's the latter, frankly, I'd rather see if Ryan George has a new Pitch Meeting video up.
Biden dropping out of the race says otherwise.
Nope. Here's exactly what he said:
“It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term,”
Not only did he not say he was unable to fulfill his duties as POTUS, he said exactly the opposite. He continues to be President, and no one has even tried to invoke the 25th Amendment.
That's not a qualification. I'll ask again. What qualifications did you use to determine he's too old?
His age is a qualification. Also the fact that he's slowed down, and probably won't be up to the task of being President for another four years. He's earned a rest.
Granted, even with these issues taken into consideration, Biden would still be a better President than Trump, as far as I'm concerned. But that ship has sailed, and now Kamala Harris is the candidate.
Nope. You said he hadn't retired when all I said was he won't be serving another four years. What followed was simply me correcting your misunderstanding.
Exactly what I've been trying to tell you. Either she knew that Biden was in severe mental decline from first hand experience and kept quiet about it or she didn't notice it, which makes her stupider than the average person, who saw the obvious. Neither is a good look for her.
Or her evaluation of Biden's mental state differs from yours. Granted, her seeing him every day, and knowing him for years may not be the same as your viewing a bunch of YouTube clips of him, but she's got to work with what she got.
And there are things about Trump people admire.
I'm sure. Some people might even admire Charles Manson, too. Including
Neil Young and the Beach Boys, apparently. There's any number of reasons why different people might admire someone. Some I can agree with, some I do not.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
So basically your metric didn't exist until Trump got convicted. What was your metric before that?
Is that what I said? No.
Please respond to what I say, not stuff you make up yourself. I can't be held responsible for your own imagination.
He has to be guilty of those actions first.
He has been found guilty.
And as you know, people can be found not guilty, years or decades later.
Sure. Anything
could happen in the future. Heck, for all I know, a year from now, Trump can pull a rubber mask off and we find he's been Elvis this whole time.
If things change, I'll reconsider my view. If it doesn't, then I likely won't.
A person constantly protesting their innocence indicates they're not to be trusted?
As I keep pointing out, and you keep ignoring, that's not all I base my evaluation on. It's one factor among others.
Then all those women killed in the Salem witch trails should not have been trusted according to you.
Don't forget Giles Corey.
So what would indicate to you he has plans to change his ways?
Him actually doing it.
So in other words, through the law.
He argued for absolute immunity, he got a version of it. But he argued for it first, before the ruling. He felt he should be immune from any and all criminal prosecution. And, as it turns out, a majority of SCOTUS justices agreed, at least to a point. It might not be enough to help him avoid accountability for all of his actions...but now that he knows he'll be immune in the future, who knows what he'll attempt to do, so long as he frames it in the right way.
Why do you consider it unlikely?
Call it a hunch.
I've already given you my many and varied reasons for not trusting Trump. You've got to start paying attention at some point, dude.
Not at all. It was a direct response to your comment.
Trumps actions have only hurt a few people.
That's debatable. Just as an example, there are almost a thousand people who were convicted or pled guilty to crimes committed on January 6, as a direct result of doing what they felt Trump wanted them to do. Add to that those who were directly harmed as a result of those criminal acts, including some deaths, and add the number of people affected or harmed in many different ways from events stemming from that event, and the lies told that culminated in it. And that's just one example.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris's actions have hurt thousands, maybe millions. So if its a question of degrees, Joe and Kamala come of worse.
In your estimation. Opinions can vary.
But, as I've said before, you're free to vote for whomever you choose, for whatever reason you like.
Everything you wrote just confirms you are using the guilt by association fallacy.
No, it doesn't. But you seem convinced otherwise, so feel free to believe whatever you wish. Obviously, whatever I say won't change your belief in that regard.
If an atheist hired 140 Muslims and embraced some practices recommended by them, does that indicate the atheist knows something about the Quran?
Actually, I've known more than a few atheists who know a lot more about the holy books of believers than most believers do.
But that's beside the point. Trump not only knows, but has hired at least 140 people who have contributed to Project 2025, including many who have held high and trusted advisory positions in his administration. To claim he knows nothing about it whatsoever is highly unlikely, but even if that's true...it doesn't make things better. In that case, he could very well be led unwittingly down the path the project favors, because so many of his past, and potentially future advisors, hold to the values and plans put forth in the document.
Judging by what you've said so far, it's obvious you don't measure both candidates by the same standard.
Actually, I do. But if that's the conclusion you've come to based on what I said, then what I say doesn't seem to matter much. Believe what you want to.
Actions speak louder than words.
What actions have I done to sway anyone's vote? My words are all I have used here.
Because you insist on talking about Trump even though I've told you several times this thread isn't about Trump.
So stop asking for my opinions about the guy.
-- A2SG, you stop, I'll stop.....but if you ask me a question, I'll answer it.....
