• mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    by debate he means he will childishly shout over anyone he’s on stage with constant bullshit and juvenile rhetoric - no thanks. having seen trump in debates I honestly question anyone silly enough to try, he’ll never ‘debate’, he just gish gallops bullshit until his minders come to change his diapers.

    • kvartsdan@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      There’s zero chance his handlers will let him debate anyone, let alone Biden. I’m not saying Biden is fantastic or anything, it’s just that Trump is unable to string coherent thoughts together anymore. It’s never been his forté, but these days? Sheesh. Dude’s not making any sense at all and can barely read from the teleprompter. Intelligently coming up with retorts on the fly in a debate? I doubt he’ll even understand why Obama’s suddenly an elderly white guy.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      He’s cowardly backed away from all debates. Him saying this doesn’t mean this has changed. It’s just posturing. He never would have an actual fair head-to-head debate with Biden. He’ll either say anything fair is unfair so he won’t participate or hell say he can’t make it for some reason.

  • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    4 months ago

    Trump doesn’t debate anyone ever. He shows up and steamrolls the other person with his version of reality.

    And when he’s done, he flips the table, shits on it, and then declares victory…

    …and his base fucking eats it up with a -smile.-

    It’s baffling.

    • Instigate@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      The kind of people that eat up his “debating” style are people who treat the idea of an open debate of concepts the same way - that is to say that they’d be flipping tables and shitting everywhere themselves. They’re uneducated and hold unqualified and unjustifiable positions, and the only way to maintain those positions is to simply ignore or reject all rhetoric to the contrary.

      They eat it up because that’s exactly how they’d act when faced with reason, logic, facts or statistics.

      • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s what really throws me for a loop. There are a lot of dumb people that think he’s smart, but there are also a lot of smart people that buy into it too… Is fear really that powerful? It is, I know… But damn…

      • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        But were they debates? Can we really call them that?

        I know that’s what the forum called for, but I saw zero debating.

        Jerry Springer episodes had more debating going on.

        • El Barto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          I mean, that’s a nice opinion and all, but yeah. Technically yes, those were debates. That one of the debaters was poorly prepared is another thing.

          In a professional car race, if one of the drivers decides to hit reverse se whole time, is it fair to tell the one that plays by the rules “oh no, you don’t deserve the winner title because that wasn’t even a race”?

          • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            If there were only two cars would it have been a race?

            It was called a race, people expected to see a race, but no race took place.

            It was not a race.

            • El Barto@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Yes. It would have been called a race.

              Let’s give you a better example, then. A boxing match.

              One of the boxers just runs around trying to touch the other contender’s butt.

              He gets disqualified.

              The other boxer wins the match.

              What the public (including you) thinks of it is irrelevant. The judges were there and ruled who won the match per the scenario presented.

              • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                Let me try it this way…

                If you had a coworker who got a new dog. They were excited and told everyone in the office about him.

                Couple months later this coworker throws a party. When you get to their house, they excitedly show you the new dog, but when what you see is clearly a cat.

                Which are you more likely to think? “What an interesting looking dog.” or “Sir, that is a cat.”

                He said it was a dog, and everyone attending was expecting to see a dog. It wasn’t a dog.

                How about this scenario:

                You have a disagreement with your neighbor about the property line. You mutually agree to settle it with a debate.

                Your neighbor spends the entire time talking over you, sidestepping virtually every point you make, blatantly lying, personally insulting you and airing grievances.

                You participate in good faith and the moderator decides that the property line should follow your plans.

                Did you and your neighbor engage in a debate?

                Here is an opinion: Donald Trump is neither classically or emotionally intelligent enough to engage in an actual, by definition, debate.

                • El Barto@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Your first analogy is flawed. If we compare it to the boxing example, it’s as if the two contenders played poker in the middle of the ring. Then the audience would be like “sir, this is a poker tournament.” So, no. Not the same.

                  The second one is still a debate. The neighbor is deranged, but there is a procedure, the neighbor didn’t follow the usual rules, and it didn’t help him at all.

                • El Barto@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Well, like I said, that’s your opinion. A bit dense in my own opinion, but if it’s yours, it’s yours.

  • designatedhacker@lemm.ee
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Anywhere AND anyplace? Stable genius. Given his bouts with slurring and dementia I’d like to see him get shredded by Biden.

    • Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      43
      ·
      4 months ago

      Nobody wants to see 2 old men ramble incoherently at each other. Right now trump is the more cognitively capable of the 2, unfortunately. Though it’s certainly close.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        4 months ago

        No way dude. Biden’s always had the speech thing. Trump has recently gotten even worse than usual. Called his wife Mercedes. Called Biden Obama. Decided to run for president.

        • Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          4 months ago

          Compare his speaking now to the 2020 debates. Very clearly worse, this isn’t the same thing.

          • OneMansTrash@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            If everyone is calling you that here, maybe you should go back to truth social like the good little lap dog you are.

            • Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              22
              ·
              4 months ago

              If every liberal on the internet calls me a Russian agent when I am not, you think that speaks poorly of me, and not the liberal ideology as a whole? Interesting. Like, when I get that comment, I immediately dismiss the speaker as unintelligent and incurious, because they instantly jump to trying to put me in a box they can ignore, rather than interrogate their own beliefs. Correct beliefs do not need to be shielded from interrogation, they will actually be strengthened by interrogation. In my ideal world, every single person fully understands socialism, because then most people would agree with it and make it happen.

              Calling me a Russian agent is very much shielding oneself from my beliefs. If people actually believed that I was a Russian agent, they’d have to believe that all leftists are. But they don’t actually believe that, liberals just need to dismiss all leftists as being right wing trolls, because otherwise we would challenge their ideology too drastically for them to keep holding onto it. And there’s nothing liberals cling to more desperately than the status quo being acceptable, because liberals fundamentally do not want to change the status quo. So as a result, every single leftist must be dismissed as an individual bad actor, totally disconnected from a larger ideology beyond their desire to destroy democracy.

              I understand why y’all do it, but I beg of you, please stop doing it and simply interrogate your own beliefs instead.

              • OneMansTrash@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                17
                ·
                4 months ago

                If you’re spreading disinformation that benefits Russia, it doesn’t even matter what your ideologies are. You’re still spreading disinformation on behalf of Russia.

                You can paint any moral picture you want, but that’s the bottom line.

                • Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  15
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  I don’t spread disinformation, I spread information. It just tends to be information that conflicts with the official US propaganda, given how much the US media lies. Who is benefitting from the truth being spread should be completely irrelevant, we spread it because it’s true, not because it makes us look good. If y’all want me to spread more favorable information to America, maybe America should start making the truth be more favorable to them.

                  American liberals call me a Russian agent purely because I spread the truth, and they don’t like the truths I speak. Let that sink in. I’m telling y’all the emperor has no clothes, and y’all call me an agent of the emperor’s enemies.

                  For instance, you ever heard of unit 731 in Japan? Atrocities on par with the Holocaust done to unsuspecting Chinese civilians, and America gave the perpetrators immunity in their version of Nuremberg in order to obtain their biochem research and keep it out of the soviet’s hands.

                  Is this Russian disinformation? I mean it sure makes America look bad, so it must be, right? But it’s also literally true.

  • Cryan24@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I’m baffled that the republicans thought putting a senile proven fraudster, insurrectionist and sexual predator with a bunch of pending court cases against him was a good idea…

  • n0m4n@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    If Biden does debate Trump, he needs to hit Trump with his rape conviction AND the $83 M judgement, tax evasion by fraud that will cost Trump another $450 M, and the multitude of civil suits that are coming. Being president does not affect civil lawsuits. And when Trump loses AGAIN, he is looking at years of prison, at the absolute minimum sentences. Hit Trump again and again for always being a loser. Remember how Obama roasted Trump? Biden can remind Trump how he was owned by Obama. Biden needs to hit Trump with the volcano roast. Trump is an emotional baby. Once Trump gets overwrought, he will be a babbling a word salad of gibberish.