Poll: Who's Going To Win Tuesday?

Who's Going To Win Tuesday

  • Don

    Votes: 6 28.6%

  • Joe

    Votes: 15 71.4%
  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
Right on cue a congresswoman from Georgia is saying she's gunna file to impeach Biden the day he comes into office. This is just stupid.
 
PCHawk said:
The military being at blm protests is easy to explain. They went on for months and proved over and over that they turned violent. It also helped that they let everyone know on advance where they were going to be. As the months went on, it became a thing to make sure you know where they were going to be and get ready. They didn't have that luxury at Capital Hill.

As far as being held responsible for inciting violence goes, to me there is a pretty easy distinction between actually calling for people to get violent (you should be held accountable) and you saying something that could lead someone to infer that you want violence (I dont think you should be held accountable) I think Trump falls in the latter without a doubt. Mostly because he straight up said they need to make their voices heard peacefully. In my mind, that comment alone should save him here.

The way this 2 party system is set up, there is no way for this country to come together. When one party's success is directly tied to the other party's failures, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that the party not in power is going to spend an entire for years dragging the party in powers name through the mud. 8ts always been this way with smear campaigns during election years. But now with social media its non stop all year every year, and it's only going to get worse. This time it gave us the "worst president ever" and 2 impeachment, along with calling half the country racist. Republicans have no choice but to go harder these next 4 years or be left behind.
Click to expand...

Logical response and I think its a fair statement with regards to the response regarding the military statement. However, I think with the "rally" being scheduled (if scheduled is the right word) well in advance and with the significance of that date and location involved, I think there should been enough concern to warrant a larger police/military presence on hand just in case and the fact that the national guard wasn't deployed.

I think your absolutely right about the division in this country though and the smear campaign. I guess the only thing we can really do as citizens is hold those in power accountable on election days. How do we move away from parties and refocus on the issues being of top priority. Sure there's extremists on both sides, but why does everything have to be labeled blue or red. I honestly wonder what would happen if we stopped labeling or pointing out party affiliation and just addressed as senators or representatives. Those closely involved will always know, but the masses may not. It'd be nice to get to a point where our politicians got back to focusing on making our country a better place and not just trying to make a party stronger.

It's just a shame that there's so many good ideas on both sides of government that get frowned upon or blown up because of the party affiliation. A great idea by republicans would get destroyed by democrats, and vice versa, but yet if if the roles switched or it was made by the other party it would be viewed as brilliant. Its just a shame we can't eliminate party lines and focus on what really matters. You'll always have radicals, but I bet for the general public you remove the "D" or the "R" and they're nothing more than politicians who may or may have ideas you agree with, but I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't be the enemy before they even opened their mouths.

I'll step off my podium now lol and go back to dreaming of a unified nation.
 
How is it possible that more police were killed in one afternoon by the Blue Lives Matter crowd than during the months of protests by Black Lives Matter?

Do you think if it was BLM trying to stop the democratic process and threatening representatives while damaging the capital building instead of MAGA people that they would have been treated the same? It was obvious it was coming for months yet they were somehow "unprepared" for it.

I would never advocate for violence or destruction of any kind but at least the BLM had an actual reason to be upset instead of the lies and conspiracies that the Ya'll Quadians believe.
 
PCHawk said:
Another thing that is important to remember is democrats did the exact same thing 4 years ago as we are seeing now. Right away they said there was election fraud and wouldn't accept the results. Then there was protests and rioting on inauguration day. So far, republicans are following suit to a tee. The only question left is will they spend the next 4 years trying to sabatoge the Biden campaign. I have to assume they will.
Click to expand...
They broke into the capital violently and tried to stop the vote certification? I don't remember that.

I don't remember Dems claiming election fraud in 2016, they were upset because of the months-long misinformation campaign through social media done by Russian agencies and that Trump colluded with them to do it. While Trump was never "proven" to have a direct connection to the efforts, there are a lot of his people charged/convicted because of what happened pre-election.
 
Ree4 said:
They broke into the capital violently and tried to stop the vote certification? I don't remember that.

I don't remember Dems claiming election fraud in 2016, they were upset because of the months-long misinformation campaign through social media done by Russian agencies and that Trump colluded with them to do it. While Trump was never "proven" to have a direct connection to the efforts, there are a lot of his people charged/convicted because of what happened pre-election.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. They said the election was hijacked, they didn't say election fraud. I guess if you look hard enough you can find a difference to justify one over the other.

As far as "storming the capital to try to stop the voter certification goes, there was only 3 ways that was ever going to turn out. One is they would protest peacefully and absolutely nothing would happen other than the country would see a large crowd of Americans supporting Trump. This one is good for Trump.

The next possibility is people would violently storm the capital, successfully kill everyone there, and Trump would remain in power. This one is good for Trump too I guess.

The third one is people would get out of hand, walk into the Capital to try to overthrow the government, then have their effort easily thwarted. This one completely destroys Trump.

If there was another possible outcome that I haven't thought of, I would love to hear it. If not, these 3 outcomes were the only possibilities. So now that they are laid out, let's use some common sense to decide which one Trump wanted. If he truly wanted the crowd to overthrow the government so he can retain power, that leaves us with option 2 or 3. I doubt he wanted 3 to happen because it would completely destroy him, so that leaves option 2. He wanted a random group of protestors filled with a ton of old people to overthrow the US government. Do you really think that was his plan? My guess is his plan was he wanted option one where they simplely go and protest peacefully so people could see the crowd on TV.
 
PCHawk said:
I stand corrected. They said the election was hijacked, they didn't say election fraud. I guess if you look hard enough you can find a difference to justify one over the other.

As far as "storming the capital to try to stop the voter certification goes, there was only 3 ways that was ever going to turn out. One is they would protest peacefully and absolutely nothing would happen other than the country would see a large crowd of Americans supporting Trump. This one is good for Trump.

The next possibility is people would violently storm the capital, successfully kill everyone there, and Trump would remain in power. This one is good for Trump too I guess.

The third one is people would get out of hand, walk into the Capital to try to overthrow the government, then have their effort easily thwarted. This one completely destroys Trump.

If there was another possible outcome that I haven't thought of, I would love to hear it. If not, these 3 outcomes were the only possibilities. So now that they are laid out, let's use some common sense to decide which one Trump wanted. If he truly wanted the crowd to overthrow the government so he can retain power, that leaves us with option 2 or 3. I doubt he wanted 3 to happen because it would completely destroy him, so that leaves option 2. He wanted a random group of protestors filled with a ton of old people to overthrow the US government. Do you really think that was his plan? My guess is his plan was he wanted option one where they simplely go and protest peacefully so people could see the crowd on TV.
Click to expand...
It had nothing to do with actual votes or fraud at the voting booth which has been proven dozens of times to be insignificant. It had to do with brainwashing of the feeble minded by one of our main rivals, you don't think that's a problem??

Who the F knows what Trump wants, it changes by the minute. Does it really matter what he specifically wanted? Was he not happy while watching the events unfold? He stoked faux anger and fear in these people for years but isn't to blame when it gets out of hand? What the F did he think would happen? Unbelievable.
 
PCHawk said:
I stand corrected. They said the election was hijacked, they didn't say election fraud. I guess if you look hard enough you can find a difference to justify one over the other.

As far as "storming the capital to try to stop the voter certification goes, there was only 3 ways that was ever going to turn out. One is they would protest peacefully and absolutely nothing would happen other than the country would see a large crowd of Americans supporting Trump. This one is good for Trump.

The next possibility is people would violently storm the capital, successfully kill everyone there, and Trump would remain in power. This one is good for Trump too I guess.

The third one is people would get out of hand, walk into the Capital to try to overthrow the government, then have their effort easily thwarted. This one completely destroys Trump.

If there was another possible outcome that I haven't thought of, I would love to hear it. If not, these 3 outcomes were the only possibilities. So now that they are laid out, let's use some common sense to decide which one Trump wanted. If he truly wanted the crowd to overthrow the government so he can retain power, that leaves us with option 2 or 3. I doubt he wanted 3 to happen because it would completely destroy him, so that leaves option 2. He wanted a random group of protestors filled with a ton of old people to overthrow the US government. Do you really think that was his plan? My guess is his plan was he wanted option one where they simplely go and protest peacefully so people could see the crowd on TV.
Click to expand...
Of course nothing was actually going to happen, it wasn't going to be overturned. Doesn't change the fact that people died, including more police officers than died during the ENTIRE year of BLM protests, lives of several lawmakers were threatened including the "hang Mike Pence" chant while gallows were constructed outside. The People's House was damaged both physically and figuratively. A fucking confederate flag was marched around inside the capital building. For people who claim to love this country and democracy, you should be fucking pissed.

Look, we need to cut it out with this "I was speaking metaphorically" bullshit. You can't call your opponents terrorist baby-murdering pedophiles, print campaign sings with gun sights superimposed over their images, scream about taking them out with extreme prejudice, and then at the end of your half-hour, frothing-mouth tirade whisper "politically speaking" and avoid charges of inciting violence.

The mob that broke into congress was ready to rape and kill. Not figuratively, literally. If they had gotten their hands on some of the higher profile members of congress, we would have seen public executions.

These assholes who think this is all a game, that violent rhetoric is an acceptable path to power and that armed rednecks with anger issues and dreams of starting the Revolution are an acceptable base need to be thrown in jail.
 
Ree4 said:
It had nothing to do with actual votes or fraud at the voting booth which has been proven dozens of times to be insignificant. It had to do with brainwashing of the feeble minded by one of our main rivals, you don't think that's a problem??

Who the F knows what Trump wants, it changes by the minute. Does it really matter what he specifically wanted? Was he not happy while watching the events unfold? He stoked faux anger and fear in these people for years but isn't to blame when it gets out of hand? What the F did he think would happen? Unbelievable.
Click to expand...
If he colluded with a foreign country to "brainwash" people, then that's a huge problem. If a foreign country perfers a certain candidate so takes it upon themselves to "brainwash" people, then that is a minor problem that needs addressed for sure. My take is both sides are doing whatever they can to sabatoge the other side and gain an advantage. I know your feelings on Trump and what he's done. What I dont know yet is your feelings on democrats and what they've done. Are you OK with the violence they incited after they lost the election last time? Are you ok with the violence they incited over the last 6 months? From reading your posts, I'm assuming you think im ok with Trump's speech inciting violence. Im not. Im simply pointing out that he stole it from the democrats playbook. Im also pointing out the ridiculous over exaggeration from what i believe happened (Trump tried to rally his side and went to far) and what the media is staying happened (Trump tried to get his supporters to take down the US government). The media obviously won tho because people like you think we were seconds away from watching live executions on CNN.

Everyone that pays any attention knows what Trump wants. He wants to remain president and cares a lot about his legacy. It's beyond obvious from all his tweets lately that said "I accomplished so and so, remember that). He wants to be remembered as a good president. Since you say you don't know what Trump wants, I assume that means you think it's possible that he was legit trying to overthrow the government? You say "does it matter what Trump wanted". Does that mean you see know difference between someone trying to start a peaceful protest and someone trying to get a mob to hang people in the streets? Because I see a huge fucking difference. "What the F did he think would happen". This is where we agree. He should have known what would happen and if the courts won't help him win, he needed to give up.
 
Ree4 said:
Of course nothing was actually going to happen, it wasn't going to be overturned. Doesn't change the fact that people died, including more police officers than died during the ENTIRE year of BLM protests, lives of several lawmakers were threatened including the "hang Mike Pence" chant while gallows were constructed outside. The People's House was damaged both physically and figuratively. A fucking confederate flag was marched around inside the capital building. For people who claim to love this country and democracy, you should be fucking pissed.

Look, we need to cut it out with this "I was speaking metaphorically" bullshit. You can't call your opponents terrorist baby-murdering pedophiles, print campaign sings with gun sights superimposed over their images, scream about taking them out with extreme prejudice, and then at the end of your half-hour, frothing-mouth tirade whisper "politically speaking" and avoid charges of inciting violence.

The mob that broke into congress was ready to rape and kill. Not figuratively, literally. If they had gotten their hands on some of the higher profile members of congress, we would have seen public executions.

These assholes who think this is all a game, that violent rhetoric is an acceptable path to power and that armed rednecks with anger issues and dreams of starting the Revolution are an acceptable base need to be thrown in jail.
Click to expand...
Oh trust me, I am pissed. I was way happier when it was the other side doing all the killing, rioting and destruction. I'm one of the people saying "come on guys, this isn't us". But truth is, there are obviously bad people on both sides.

At least Trump was speaking metaphorically. People like Commo and Pelosi were straight up calling for violence. They didn't even hide it.

I agree that the people who were inside the capitol need to be in jail. Do you agree that every single person who was violent during BLM riots need to be in jail? Do you agree that every single Democrat who called for the violence needs to be in jail?

Also you are caught up on the "more cops died" deal. What about the old black retired cop who died? Did you forget about him? Don't care because "your people " did it? Or does it not count because he was already retired? Also are you counting the cop who committed suicide days later? I'm not much of a conspiracy guy, but when people commit suicide after something like that, it makes you wonder.
 
I just read an article about the guy who got shot by the cop in Wisconsin. He did an interview where he admitted having a knife. The article talked about it being public knowledge that he had a knife for months, yet the media kept calling him unarmed. Thats not a mistake. That is a direct call for violence.

Look at the numbers of black people getting shot by police year to year. Its not like it never happens for 3 years, then happens over and over during election years. The media gives two shits about covering those stories during non election years. Then they shove George Floyd's, Brianna Taylor's and Jacob Blake's down our throat all day every day on election years. 4 years ago they had to pick Michael Brown to hitch their waggon to, even tho that was as legit of a shooting as there ever was.

And don't get me wrong. If the media wants to shove those stories down our throats until changes are forced, I'm all for it. Just don't do it on election years only, blaming the racist president that happens to be in office for it all, and then completely ignore the problem after the election. Don't print stories saying another white cop shoots a black person, then have to issue a correction saying "turns out the cop wasn't black". There is no excuse for that. It's not an accident. Its a conscious decision to form a narrative to incite violence and sabatoge a presidency. Its bs if Russia can "brainwash" voters. It's just as bad when our own media does. Hell, it might be worse.
 
PCHawk said:
If he colluded with a foreign country to "brainwash" people, then that's a huge problem. If a foreign country perfers a certain candidate so takes it upon themselves to "brainwash" people, then that is a minor problem that needs addressed for sure. My take is both sides are doing whatever they can to sabatoge the other side and gain an advantage. I know your feelings on Trump and what he's done. What I dont know yet is your feelings on democrats and what they've done. Are you OK with the violence they incited after they lost the election last time? Are you ok with the violence they incited over the last 6 months? From reading your posts, I'm assuming you think im ok with Trump's speech inciting violence. Im not. Im simply pointing out that he stole it from the democrats playbook. Im also pointing out the ridiculous over exaggeration from what i believe happened (Trump tried to rally his side and went to far) and what the media is staying happened (Trump tried to get his supporters to take down the US government). The media obviously won tho because people like you think we were seconds away from watching live executions on CNN.

Everyone that pays any attention knows what Trump wants. He wants to remain president and cares a lot about his legacy. It's beyond obvious from all his tweets lately that said "I accomplished so and so, remember that). He wants to be remembered as a good president. Since you say you don't know what Trump wants, I assume that means you think it's possible that he was legit trying to overthrow the government? You say "does it matter what Trump wanted". Does that mean you see know difference between someone trying to start a peaceful protest and someone trying to get a mob to hang people in the streets? Because I see a huge fucking difference. "What the F did he think would happen". This is where we agree. He should have known what would happen and if the courts won't help him win, he needed to give up.
Click to expand...
What violence was incited, can you point to specific quotes or videos? I'm not a democrat, I hate CNN and MSNBC. He did not "steal it from democrats playbook", he's been doing it for more than 4 years with his hate speech and refusal to condone white supremecy. In fact he encouraged them over the last 4 years. Agree to disagree, there are plenty of independent sources out there (including statements from the FBI) that suggest senators, congress people, hell even the VP could have been killed. How much of a stretch is it to say that when police officers were dragged down the stairs and beaten with American flags?

I disagree, he doesn't give two shits about being a good president, he cares about being in power. I also don't understand all the whataboutism, trying to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

Of course, anyone who vandalizes buildings or protested violently should be charged, but don't even try to compare the two movements as similar. One is based on centuries of mistreatment and oppression while the other is based on lies believed by the ignorant and feeble-minded - lies perpetrated by the president. They are not even fucking close to similar.
 
Last edited:
PCHawk said:
If he colluded with a foreign country to "brainwash" people, then that's a huge problem. If a foreign country perfers a certain candidate so takes it upon themselves to "brainwash" people, then that is a minor problem that needs addressed for sure. My take is both sides are doing whatever they can to sabatoge the other side and gain an advantage. I know your feelings on Trump and what he's done. What I dont know yet is your feelings on democrats and what they've done. Are you OK with the violence they incited after they lost the election last time? Are you ok with the violence they incited over the last 6 months? From reading your posts, I'm assuming you think im ok with Trump's speech inciting violence. Im not. Im simply pointing out that he stole it from the democrats playbook. Im also pointing out the ridiculous over exaggeration from what i believe happened (Trump tried to rally his side and went to far) and what the media is staying happened (Trump tried to get his supporters to take down the US government). The media obviously won tho because people like you think we were seconds away from watching live executions on CNN.

Everyone that pays any attention knows what Trump wants. He wants to remain president and cares a lot about his legacy. It's beyond obvious from all his tweets lately that said "I accomplished so and so, remember that). He wants to be remembered as a good president. Since you say you don't know what Trump wants, I assume that means you think it's possible that he was legit trying to overthrow the government? You say "does it matter what Trump wanted". Does that mean you see know difference between someone trying to start a peaceful protest and someone trying to get a mob to hang people in the streets? Because I see a huge fucking difference. "What the F did he think would happen". This is where we agree. He should have known what would happen and if the courts won't help him win, he needed to give up.
Click to expand...

He stole nothing from "the democrats playbook". He stole it from a political playbook. Both sides have been doing it to each other since the two party system we just all have an unconscious bias thinking that one party does it more than the other. They're all equally guilty.

The part about Trump's legacy I find interesting. I agree with you 100% that deep down Trump cares about his legacy, but the same time I totally understand how its questionable based on his actions. The question I would ask though is that how he wants to look back at himself, or how he wants the people to remember him? I only ask that because (regardless of what I think about him) his entire time in office he's had a "give a shit attitude" in which he didn't care who he offended or really take into consideration what he said and how he said it. Regardless of what he's done, be it good or bad, he's done so with a holier than though approach and like him or not, its easy to understand how why people absolutely despise him as a person based on how he treats others or how he conducts himself in public.

So I guess my thought would be if he truly wanted to be considered by others as the one of the great leaders of this nation wouldn't he have gone out of his way a little more to not ruffle as many feathers or constantly comment on how he cares so little about what people think? I understand that personality is not the primary factor in how well a president runs a country, but I think it has everything to do with how you are remembered. I also don't feel that there is a chance in hell anyone puts themselves out there like he did last week if they truly care about the legacy they leave behind, because fair or unfair, that moment is how he's going to be remembered.

My honest opinion is that the only legacy he truly cares is about how he sees himself and that will never change. In my opinion he cares more about power and fueling that power than he does how he is perceived.
 
Ree4 said:
What violence was incited, can you point to specific quotes or videos? I'm not a democrat, I hate CNN and MSNBC. He did not "steal it from democrats playbook", he's been doing it for more than 4 years with his hate speech and refusal to condone white supremecy. In fact he encouraged them over the last 4 years. Agree to disagree, there are plenty of independent sources out there (including statements from the FBI) that suggest senators, congress people, hell even the VP could have been killed. How much of a stretch is it to say that when police officers were dragged down the stairs and beaten with American flags?

I disagree, he doesn't give two shits about being a good president, he cares about being in power. I also don't understand all the whataboutism, trying to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

Of course, anyone who vandalizes buildings or protested violently should be charged, but don't even try to compare the two movements as similar. One is based on centuries of mistreatment and oppression while the other is based on lies believed by the ignorant and feeble-minded - lies perpetrated by the president. They are not even fucking close to similar.
Click to expand...
The New York governor said "since where are protests supposed to be peaceful". Pelosi had some quote about there should be riots all over the country, perhaps there will be. Or something like that. I've watched two long videos on Twitter showing clips of democrats talking about riots and inciting violence.

Holy cow, you're one of the people who say he doesn't denounce white supremacy? I've also seen a video with clip after clip of him denouncing white supremacy. Now I will say, he does talk too politically when he does it to be careful not to piss off possible voters, just like all politicians do. Just like Biden did when asked about the violence from BLM. But thats all political bs that goes both ways, and frankly is ridiculous on both sides. But he has denounced white supremacy repeatedly.

I do agree that it was POSSIBLE someone could have been killed. We couldn't disagree more on the likelihood of that happening.

Whataboutism is the stupidest word ever created. What used to be called "calling out hypocrisy" (which is a good thing) is now called "whataboutism" which is a liberal term they needed to invent to shame people for calling out their bs. Im going to type the next part in caps to show how loud im screaming to try to get this to sink in. I'M NOT POINTING OUT BAD BEHAVIOR TO JUSTIFY OTHER BAD BEHAVIOR. I'M POINTING IT OUT TO POINT OUT HYPOCRISY!

It would be a waste of time to try to compare the two movements so I haven't even bothered once to do that. Each movement is an opinion based on what they believe. (Black people being mistreated for centuries isn't an opinion. The extent of how much of it is going on now is an opinion that gets greatly exaggerated every election year. Election fraud isn't an opinion. The extent of how much of it happened this election and whether it was enough to change results is. That has been greatly exaggeratedby Trump.) When I base my opinions on riots and violence, I try to leave my opinions on the two movements out of it because I recognize that the people on each side believe their opinions. It helps to understand the other side and also not be wishy washy on my opinions on riots and protesting. You say people who believe Trump are feeble-minded. I say the people who believe the media every election year are feeble-minded.
 
kicker22 said:
He stole nothing from "the democrats playbook". He stole it from a political playbook. Both sides have been doing it to each other since the two party system we just all have an unconscious bias thinking that one party does it more than the other. They're all equally guilty.

The part about Trump's legacy I find interesting. I agree with you 100% that deep down Trump cares about his legacy, but the same time I totally understand how its questionable based on his actions. The question I would ask though is that how he wants to look back at himself, or how he wants the people to remember him? I only ask that because (regardless of what I think about him) his entire time in office he's had a "give a shit attitude" in which he didn't care who he offended or really take into consideration what he said and how he said it. Regardless of what he's done, be it good or bad, he's done so with a holier than though approach and like him or not, its easy to understand how why people absolutely despise him as a person based on how he treats others or how he conducts himself in public.

So I guess my thought would be if he truly wanted to be considered by others as the one of the great leaders of this nation wouldn't he have gone out of his way a little more to not ruffle as many feathers or constantly comment on how he cares so little about what people think? I understand that personality is not the primary factor in how well a president runs a country, but I think it has everything to do with how you are remembered. I also don't feel that there is a chance in hell anyone puts themselves out there like he did last week if they truly care about the legacy they leave behind, because fair or unfair, that moment is how he's going to be remembered.

My honest opinion is that the only legacy he truly cares is about how he sees himself and that will never change. In my opinion he cares more about power and fueling that power than he does how he is perceived.
Click to expand...
You're right about it not being the democratic playbook. They just upped the anti a lot this time. Most of that probably has to do with social media more than anything. But its only going to get worse because if Republicans want to win, they are going to have to up the anti even more. Whoever the Republican nomination is next time will here a lot of "you think Trump was bad? This guy makes Trump look like a saint".

We both agree that Trump did a bad job of creating a good image. Where we probabky disagree is how much of that was on Trump and how much was on the media. You're a fool if you think it was 100% Trump's fault just like you're a fool if you think it was 100% the media's fault. Most people are smart enough to agree that both played a part, while disagreeing on the percentages. I would say it was 75% media 25% Trump. Im guessing you would reverse those numbers.

The media does play a huge role in how people precieve politicians tho. They tricked a lot of Germans into believing Hitler was the good guy. Its equally 3asy to trick people into thinking a good guy is a bad guy. All you have to do is ignore everything he does thats good. (Like peace deals in the middle east). And blame everything bad on him. (Like racism and covid). If he says something good, don't put it in the news. If he says something that could be seen as bad if taken out of context, break it down into a clip and run with it. I've seen quite a few clips from the media that make Trump look bad. Then someone on Twitter posts the full interview and its completely fine. How many people do you think ever see that full video? I've said before on here, but the Charlottesville "good people on both sides" is the best example I've seen. Google the entire presser and see where he calls the kkk good people. Once you see the media do it once, its easier and easier to spot.
 
PCHawk said:
You're right about it not being the democratic playbook. They just upped the anti a lot this time. Most of that probably has to do with social media more than anything. But its only going to get worse because if Republicans want to win, they are going to have to up the anti even more. Whoever the Republican nomination is next time will here a lot of "you think Trump was bad? This guy makes Trump look like a saint".

We both agree that Trump did a bad job of creating a good image. Where we probabky disagree is how much of that was on Trump and how much was on the media. You're a fool if you think it was 100% Trump's fault just like you're a fool if you think it was 100% the media's fault. Most people are smart enough to agree that both played a part, while disagreeing on the percentages. I would say it was 75% media 25% Trump. Im guessing you would reverse those numbers.

The media does play a huge role in how people precieve politicians tho. They tricked a lot of Germans into believing Hitler was the good guy. Its equally 3asy to trick people into thinking a good guy is a bad guy. All you have to do is ignore everything he does thats good. (Like peace deals in the middle east). And blame everything bad on him. (Like racism and covid). If he says something good, don't put it in the news. If he says something that could be seen as bad if taken out of context, break it down into a clip and run with it. I've seen quite a few clips from the media that make Trump look bad. Then someone on Twitter posts the full interview and its completely fine. How many people do you think ever see that full video? I've said before on here, but the Charlottesville "good people on both sides" is the best example I've seen. Google the entire presser and see where he calls the kkk good people. Once you see the media do it once, its easier and easier to spot.
Click to expand...

I think one of the biggest mistakes he made was his open feud with the media. When you publicly come after an entity your going to receive backlash and while I agree that the media has done their part to make him look bad why add fuel to the fire.

You can't add gasoline to a fire and then cry when you get burned. He spent so much time feuding back with them that it got beyond simply being personal at both ends. And as hard as it would be to dismiss them I simply don't see how a political figure can use his podium to go right back after them knowing damn well its only going to make him look worse.

The problem from my point of view is very rarely has he not gotten his way and when he doesn't he blows up, because that's who he is. He went toe to toe with the media on the surface and got after it like it meant absolutely nothing to him on the outside, but internally fed into it even more. He wanted the power to control what was being said about him and it infuriated him to the point it played into his demise. The media wants that story and he gave him one that just made it easier and easier for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top