The oficially **official** Trump vs. Harris "debate" thread

[nobody's_hero]

Someone had to be the harbinger.

One of the major reasons we have this level of anti-establishment sentiment is because Ron Paul ran in 2008 and 2012. [1]

Ron Paul was the necessary precursor - and unfortunately, we got Trump as the primary receiver of that benefaction (rather than the other way around).

But one way or the other, Trump's estate will pass on soon enough.

Hopefully, the next inheritor (if there even is one) will actually be worthy of it.



[1] And even he didn't originate it - but he did greatly amplify and focus it.

I think Trump was useful in breaking the hold the MSM has over Americans (still far too many take it as the gospel). I haven't had any reason to watch Fox since Tucker left. (not that I watched much of it anyway, I haven't had cable TV since like 2014, but Tucker Tonight was usually worth watch online wherever someone posted it). I know lots of republicans who feel the same way.

The fact is, you can't get anyone to believe something else until they willfully stop believing in what they do. They have to stop believing in the MSM. There are many, many more people skeptical of what gets sent out over the airwaves today, than there were in 2008.

I'd say it's a waste to believe in Trump, but for a lot of folks (like myself) this is bigger than Trump (he would disagree with me, but whatever), and I see the potential here. The only question is whether we will (or even can) take advantage of it. Or, maybe we'll just overdose on black-pills, as media script-readers creep their way back towards regaining credibility.

But as I said, it's a very fragile thing. One false-flag and they're back in business.

[acptulsa]

Yeah, I don't think Trump could've happened if Ron Paul hadn't happened before him.

Also, i think Trump was at CPAC the year a crowd kept yelling, "PRESIDENT PAUL! PRESIDENT PAUL!" and was probably amazed by what he was witnessing (actual enthusiasm). At one point he said that Ron Paul was right about a lot of things and deserved to be listened to (paraphrasing) - but some time later said forget it, he can't win - after that we all hated him.

Ron Paul woke US up. Years later, Trump woke up a much larger segment of the population.

Trump didn't do $#@!.

With huge amounts of free publicity from the same MSM who had all of us in their faces screaming, HIS NAME IS RON PAUL! SAY HIS NAME! Trump rode the wave we created. Nothing more. We created the wave and the MSM was his surfboard. All Donnie Darko did was replace Ron Paul's intelligent commentary and workable solutions with clichés and third elementary school playground bluster, and get himself carried to the White House by a level of publicity unsurpassed until the Vax came along.

[Occam's Banana]

I think Trump was useful in breaking the hold the MSM has over Americans (still far too many take it as the gospel). I haven't had any reason to watch Fox since Tucker left. (not that I watched much of it anyway, I haven't had cable TV since like 2014, but Tucker Tonight was usually worth watch online wherever someone posted it). I know lots of republicans who feel the same way.

The fact is, you can't get anyone to believe something else until they willfully stop believing in what they do. They have to stop believing in the MSM. There are many, many more people skeptical of what gets sent out over the airwaves today, than there were in 2008.

I'd say it's a waste to believe in Trump, but for a lot of folks (like myself) this is bigger than Trump (he would disagree with me, but whatever), and I see the potential here. The only question is whether we will (or even can) take advantage of it. Or, maybe we'll just overdose on black-pills, as media script-readers creep their way back towards regaining credibility.

But as I said, it's a very fragile thing. One false-flag and they're back in business.

The best thing about Trump (and the next-best thing about him - whatever that might be - is not even close to being as good as this) has been his catalysis of the implosion of the credibility of the corporate/"mainstream" press and their self-inflicted exposure as hack frauds. (And that's another thing Ron Paul blazed a trail for.)

[unknown]

https://x.com/VoteHarrisOut/status/1834447054338208236

[unknown]

https://x.com/LeadingReport/status/1835344310419493234

[unknown]

WTF?

https://x.com/mtgreenee/status/1835289676959064119

[Anti Globalist]

WTF?

https://x.com/mtgreenee/status/1835289676959064119

Move along. Nothing to see here. It's perfectly normal for whistleblowers to die in tragic accidents. There is nothing nefarious about this.

[acptulsa]

It's perfectly normal for whistleblowers to die in tragic accidents.

Once the mafia takes over, yes. Yes it is.

[Occam's Banana]

The best thing about Trump (and the next-best thing about him - whatever that might be - is not even close to being as good as this) has been his catalysis of the implosion of the credibility of the corporate/"mainstream" press and their self-inflicted exposure as hack frauds. (And that's another thing Ron Paul blazed a trail for.)

[bold emphasis added]

Did Kamala just say Trump was lying about her saying she would take guns away? Excuse me while I laugh. Why are the moderators only fact-checking Trump?

Because he's a chronic and habitual liar.

As distinct from whom?

Not from most politicians. But Trump takes lying to a much higher level, both in frequency and in narcissism.

Most politicians are as narcissistic and full of themselves as Trump is. He just wears it on his sleeve.

And if you really think most politicians lie significantly less frequently (or severely) than Trump does, then I don't know what to tell you.

But in any case, none of that has anything to do with why Trump was being subjected to on-the-spot "fact checks" while Harris was not. (Unless you're going to tell us that Trump's lies are somehow "extra-special" ones in urgent need of immediate correction, while Harris' lies are somehow not even worth bothering about at all, so she should get a pass).

If they're going to put on a show of calling one of these clowns out for his lies, then they should call the other clown out for her lies, too.

But they didn't, and they won't - and you know why as well as I and everyone else does.

They could not care less about politicians' lies (nor about their frequency or the narcissism motivating them). If Harris was even more the "higher level [...] frequen[t] [...] narcissis[tic]" liar than Trump, they wouldn't have done anything differently.

THREAD: ABC Moderator Linsey Davis Admits: ‘Fact-checking’ Was Only Planned for Trump

[Sonny Tufts]

If they're going to put on a show of calling one of these clowns out for his lies, then they should call the other clown out for her lies, too.

I agree.

So you have two biased networks -- ABC and Fox News. What else is new?

[Occam's Banana]

They could not care less about politicians' lies (nor about their frequency or the narcissism motivating them). If Harris was even more the "higher level [...] frequen[t] [...] narcissis[tic]" liar than Trump, they wouldn't have done anything differently.

THREAD: ABC Moderator Linsey Davis Admits: ‘Fact-checking’ Was Only Planned for Trump

THREAD: ABC whistleblower says debate was rigged

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5W6ai8tGR8