|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 4, 2024 14:17:32 GMT -8
Everyone has an agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 4, 2024 14:34:22 GMT -8
It's not different at all. If you think anyone in politics clearly doesn't have an agenda, you're off your rocker. The voices have changed, the message is still the same. And again, this is largely driven by media forces that are amplifying a message of division. If you aren't questioning everything, you're far behind where you need to be. my agenda is, I want to win and not have a crazy asshole making decisions and enabling Heritage / 2025 etc. I assume that most in the opposition to orange cancer are the same. I've watched a lot, and played, of sports in my life. I've also given many presentations to a range of audiences over the years...including a few in the audience where you would actually recognize the name. I know what it takes to deliver a presentation and affect the audience. What we saw last week was "losing"...and I know what that looks like. That's what people are reacting to...losing. what's complex about that?? Forgot something while I was driving. Nothing is wrong with reacting to what you "saw" at all. But everything needs a lens, everything needs a level-headed perspective. Too many people want to be emotional in the moment and then they can't see anything else. It's why you see much more favorable ratings for Trump now than you did four years ago: Time. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 4, 2024 14:34:55 GMT -8
this is different, guys like Carville, Friedman..and many many more smart people without an agenda..think he's gone. It's not different at all. If you think anyone in politics clearly doesn't have an agenda, you're off your rocker. The voices have changed, the message is still the same. And again, this is largely driven by media forces that are amplifying a message of division. If you aren't questioning everything, you're far behind where you need to be. I'm sorry but it really is different. Biden is senile and is not going to 'lead' the country, even if he wins the election. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jul 4, 2024 14:36:16 GMT -8
this is different, guys like Carville, Friedman..and many many more smart people without an agenda..think he's gone. It's not different at all. If you think anyone in politics clearly doesn't have an agenda, you're off your rocker. The voices have changed, the message is still the same. And again, this is largely driven by media forces that are amplifying a message of division. If you aren't questioning everything, you're far behind where you need to be. There isn't any 'division' - most of the country thinks that Biden should not be running - Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 4, 2024 15:27:52 GMT -8
It's not different at all. If you think anyone in politics clearly doesn't have an agenda, you're off your rocker. The voices have changed, the message is still the same. And again, this is largely driven by media forces that are amplifying a message of division. If you aren't questioning everything, you're far behind where you need to be. There isn't any 'division' - most of the country thinks that Biden should not be running - Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. If you think that means the same thing...lol. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 4, 2024 15:33:15 GMT -8
It's not different at all. If you think anyone in politics clearly doesn't have an agenda, you're off your rocker. The voices have changed, the message is still the same. And again, this is largely driven by media forces that are amplifying a message of division. If you aren't questioning everything, you're far behind where you need to be. I'm sorry but it really is different. Biden is senile and is not going to 'lead' the country, even if he wins the election. It really isn't different, though. Carville is openly campaigning against Biden donors as we speak. There are factions within factions of both parties, all parties, and that is still a significant and relevant data point. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 4, 2024 16:07:47 GMT -8
The New York Times platforms a right-winger who lied about his voting history with the purpose of suppressing voter turnout. Biden is senile. Mark Milley, in a 60 Minutes interview, says this. (He's the guy Trump threatened to execute late in his term.) x.com/agentcurieuse/status/1807547404041798120?t=vGRbCKcNOajY4zafr7XzuA&s=19Biden is senile. I think we need to examine logic just a little bit. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 4, 2024 16:48:01 GMT -8
Bottom line is most of America wants to see a strong leader. Optics, right or wrong. That debate was a chance for Biden to show the American Public that what his Staff has been saying is true, that he looks strong, he speaks strong, etc.... It went horribly wrong.
Biden is not the face of the Country that many people want to see. No CEO would hire that guy. People are also concerned about who would be taking over if Biden had to step down. There's not a lot of Kamala fans out there. They take that into consideration.
Also, right or wrong, superficially people remember that when Trump was in office, the main areas of concern were doing fine until COVID hit. Gas prices were lower than they are now, inflation
wasn't as high, unemployment was low, etc.... They're not taking into consideration the divide he created, amongst other issues.
If there were a younger, more competent candidate than Biden running, that candidate wins going away. Probably by a wide margin. Having said that, this is what we have and it's too bad they didn't consider announcing a change from Biden a long time ago, and too bad Biden wouldn't consider that. Big mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 4, 2024 17:01:46 GMT -8
Bottom line is most of America wants to see a strong leader. Optics, right or wrong. That debate was a chance for Biden to show the American Public that what his Staff has been saying is true, that he looks strong, he speaks strong, etc.... It went horribly wrong. Biden is not the face of the Country that many people want to see. No CEO would hire that guy. People are also concerned about who would be taking over if Biden had to step down. There's not a lot of Kamala fans out there. They take that into consideration. Also, right or wrong, superficially people remember that when Trump was in office, the main areas of concern were doing fine until COVID hit. Gas prices were lower than they are now, inflation wasn't as high, unemployment was low, etc.... They're not taking into consideration the divide he created, amongst other issues. If there were a younger, more competent candidate than Biden running, that candidate wins going away. Probably by a wide margin. Having said that, this is what we have and it's too bad they didn't consider announcing a change from Biden a long time ago, and too bad Biden wouldn't consider that. Big mistake. "No CEO would hire that guy." I found one. Wasn't even overly difficult, either. You keep repeating the word "optics." Of course the general public cares about "optics" when it's a short-sighted decision as it's unfolding. On a day-to-day basis, does the average person care about optics? Doubtful. Who gets $#!+ done? Production. Value. Character. And something you have thus far not really addressed is the media coordination to degrade Biden's chances. I'd like to actually hear about that. I'm not interested in what people think, the casual voter is absolutely clueless and just does what they are told. We have numerous data points to corroborate that notion. Trump's real advantage here is two-fold: The media refuses to address the seriousness of his issues and the benefit of time. Because time has passed, people's memories aren't as intact of what occurred. And yeah, having a weak incumbent is unfortunate from a totality perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 4, 2024 17:29:57 GMT -8
Bottom line is most of America wants to see a strong leader. Optics, right or wrong. That debate was a chance for Biden to show the American Public that what his Staff has been saying is true, that he looks strong, he speaks strong, etc.... It went horribly wrong. Biden is not the face of the Country that many people want to see. No CEO would hire that guy. People are also concerned about who would be taking over if Biden had to step down. There's not a lot of Kamala fans out there. They take that into consideration. Also, right or wrong, superficially people remember that when Trump was in office, the main areas of concern were doing fine until COVID hit. Gas prices were lower than they are now, inflation wasn't as high, unemployment was low, etc.... They're not taking into consideration the divide he created, amongst other issues. If there were a younger, more competent candidate than Biden running, that candidate wins going away. Probably by a wide margin. Having said that, this is what we have and it's too bad they didn't consider announcing a change from Biden a long time ago, and too bad Biden wouldn't consider that. Big mistake. "No CEO would hire that guy." I found one. Wasn't even overly difficult, either. You keep repeating the word "optics." Of course the general public cares about "optics" when it's a short-sighted decision as it's unfolding. On a day-to-day basis, does the average person care about optics? Doubtful. Who gets $#!+ done? Production. Value. Character. And something you have thus far not really addressed is the media coordination to degrade Biden's chances. I'd like to actually hear about that. I'm not interested in what people think, the casual voter is absolutely clueless and just does what they are told. We have numerous data points to corroborate that notion. Trump's real advantage here is two-fold: The media refuses to address the seriousness of his issues and the benefit of time. Because time has passed, people's memories aren't as intact of what occurred. And yeah, having a weak incumbent is unfortunate from a totality perspective. Mark Cuban. Oh my gosh. I'm talking about outside of politics. Someone who has to speak and interact with others on a daily basis. I didn't think I needed to spell that out. You're wrong when you say the public has only cared about optics in this short term. Optics has been his disadvantage for a VERY long time. The public sure does care about optics on a daily basis when we're talking about the POTUS. Biden is the face of the Country. Nobody would hire Biden to be the face of a Company unless there's an agenda like Cuban would have. He does not like Trump and would do, and say anything pro Biden to sway people. Not a good example. The Media has tried to degrade Trump's chances to win the election as well for a very long time, justifiably or not, depending on where a person stands. They're only now doing a negative Media blitz on Biden because they're worried he's a sure loser on election day. They want someone else, desperately. They're panicking. That's how bad the debate was for Biden. Biden is the only chance to defeat Trump, and Biden better hope that he gets another shot at Trump on another debate forum to try and redeem himself, although Trump would be an idiot to debate him again. If they do debate, I don't know what else they could be said. All eyes would be on Biden to see if he blows that debate, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 4, 2024 17:39:13 GMT -8
Dumbfounded.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 4, 2024 18:06:18 GMT -8
"No CEO would hire that guy." I found one. Wasn't even overly difficult, either. You keep repeating the word "optics." Of course the general public cares about "optics" when it's a short-sighted decision as it's unfolding. On a day-to-day basis, does the average person care about optics? Doubtful. Who gets $#!+ done? Production. Value. Character. And something you have thus far not really addressed is the media coordination to degrade Biden's chances. I'd like to actually hear about that. I'm not interested in what people think, the casual voter is absolutely clueless and just does what they are told. We have numerous data points to corroborate that notion. Trump's real advantage here is two-fold: The media refuses to address the seriousness of his issues and the benefit of time. Because time has passed, people's memories aren't as intact of what occurred. And yeah, having a weak incumbent is unfortunate from a totality perspective. Mark Cuban. Oh my gosh. I'm talking about outside of politics. Someone who has to speak and interact with others on a daily basis. I didn't think I needed to spell that out. You're wrong when you say the public has only cared about optics in this short term. Optics has been his disadvantage for a VERY long time. The public sure does care about optics on a daily basis when we're talking about the POTUS. Biden is the face of the Country. Nobody would hire Biden to be the face of a Company unless there's an agenda like Cuban would have. He does not like Trump and would do, and say anything pro Biden to sway people. Not a good example. The Media has tried to degrade Trump's chances to win the election as well for a very long time, justifiably or not, depending on where a person stands. They're only now doing a negative Media blitz on Biden because they're worried he's a sure loser on election day. They want someone else, desperately. They're panicking. That's how bad the debate was for Biden. Biden is the only chance to defeat Trump, and Biden better hope that he gets another shot at Trump on another debate forum to try and redeem himself, although Trump would be an idiot to debate him again. If they do debate, I don't know what else they could be said. All eyes would be on Biden to see if he blows that debate, as well. Outside of politics? He's not in politics. He's a CEO and an investor, with a background in sales. Now you'll change the goalposts and modify the argument. That's alright. No, I don't think the public genuinely gives a $#!+ about optics on a daily basis. Mundane, ordinary duties carried out on a daily basis. Meetings, briefings, phone calls, administrative duties...If that's really at the top of people's lists, I'd be pretty surprised. We aren't avoiding nuclear catastrophe on a perpetual basis. So again you can't point to anything specific, which is what I figured. Understood. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 4, 2024 18:32:40 GMT -8
Mark Cuban. Oh my gosh. I'm talking about outside of politics. Someone who has to speak and interact with others on a daily basis. I didn't think I needed to spell that out. You're wrong when you say the public has only cared about optics in this short term. Optics has been his disadvantage for a VERY long time. The public sure does care about optics on a daily basis when we're talking about the POTUS. Biden is the face of the Country. Nobody would hire Biden to be the face of a Company unless there's an agenda like Cuban would have. He does not like Trump and would do, and say anything pro Biden to sway people. Not a good example. The Media has tried to degrade Trump's chances to win the election as well for a very long time, justifiably or not, depending on where a person stands. They're only now doing a negative Media blitz on Biden because they're worried he's a sure loser on election day. They want someone else, desperately. They're panicking. That's how bad the debate was for Biden. Biden is the only chance to defeat Trump, and Biden better hope that he gets another shot at Trump on another debate forum to try and redeem himself, although Trump would be an idiot to debate him again. If they do debate, I don't know what else they could be said. All eyes would be on Biden to see if he blows that debate, as well. Outside of politics? He's not in politics. He's a CEO and an investor, with a background in sales. Now you'll change the goalposts and modify the argument. That's alright. No, I don't think the public genuinely gives a $#!+ about optics on a daily basis. Mundane, ordinary duties carried out on a daily basis. Meetings, briefings, phone calls, administrative duties...If that's really at the top of people's lists, I'd be pretty surprised. We aren't avoiding nuclear catastrophe on a perpetual basis. So again you can't point to anything specific, which is what I figured. Understood. I don't need to move any goalposts. Sheesh. You're either playing dumb again, or you actually don't get it. I'm saying that Cuban is saying all the right things because of politics. He doesn't like Trump, and wants Biden to look as good possible. Really easy. I can't point to anything specific? I can't get more specific than saying when it comes to the American Public and the President, optics are a HUGE deal, and it's also a huge deal to a CEO when they consider a candidate who's going to be out in public, and do public speaking, etc.... You're trying to lessen Biden's issues, there's another easy one. Understood. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 4, 2024 18:55:15 GMT -8
Outside of politics? He's not in politics. He's a CEO and an investor, with a background in sales. Now you'll change the goalposts and modify the argument. That's alright. No, I don't think the public genuinely gives a $#!+ about optics on a daily basis. Mundane, ordinary duties carried out on a daily basis. Meetings, briefings, phone calls, administrative duties...If that's really at the top of people's lists, I'd be pretty surprised. We aren't avoiding nuclear catastrophe on a perpetual basis. So again you can't point to anything specific, which is what I figured. Understood. I don't need to move any goalposts. Sheesh. You're either playing dumb again, or you actually don't get it. I'm saying that Cuban is saying all the right things because of politics. He doesn't like Trump, and wants Biden to look as good possible. Really easy. I can't point to anything specific? I can't get more specific than saying when it comes to the American Public and the President, optics are a HUGE deal, and it's also a huge deal to a CEO when they consider a candidate who's going to be out in public, and do public speaking, etc.... You're trying to lessen Biden's issues, there's another easy one. Understood. But you did move the goalposts. Now you're saying Cuban is doing it for some political benefit? Read the post. He talks about both guys, it's not a pro-Biden only post in the slightest. I understand when the narrative falls apart. All good. I don't have to lessen Biden's issues, that's not the point. We have an established double standard, which is all I want confirmed here. I don't need your analysis on Biden's optics, his age, his abilities, his speech, none of it. It's regurgitated. But while we're here, let's hold both candidates to the same standard. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 4, 2024 19:13:01 GMT -8
I don't need to move any goalposts. Sheesh. You're either playing dumb again, or you actually don't get it. I'm saying that Cuban is saying all the right things because of politics. He doesn't like Trump, and wants Biden to look as good possible. Really easy. I can't point to anything specific? I can't get more specific than saying when it comes to the American Public and the President, optics are a HUGE deal, and it's also a huge deal to a CEO when they consider a candidate who's going to be out in public, and do public speaking, etc.... You're trying to lessen Biden's issues, there's another easy one. Understood. But you did move the goalposts. Now you're saying Cuban is doing it for some political benefit? Read the post. He talks about both guys, it's not a pro-Biden only post in the slightest. I understand when the narrative falls apart. All good. I don't have to lessen Biden's issues, that's not the point. We have an established double standard, which is all I want confirmed here. I don't need your analysis on Biden's optics, his age, his abilities, his speech, none of it. It's regurgitated. But while we're here, let's hold both candidates to the same standard. You're overly dramatic side comes out AGAIN. Never moved a goalpost. They were in the same position in each post. It was always about politics and the dislike on Cubans part towards Trump. None of that is a revelation. You don't want my analysis on Biden's condition, yet you'll shove down our throats your analysis on why it's wrong to give it. That's not how it works. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 4, 2024 22:06:34 GMT -8
But you did move the goalposts. Now you're saying Cuban is doing it for some political benefit? Read the post. He talks about both guys, it's not a pro-Biden only post in the slightest. I understand when the narrative falls apart. All good. I don't have to lessen Biden's issues, that's not the point. We have an established double standard, which is all I want confirmed here. I don't need your analysis on Biden's optics, his age, his abilities, his speech, none of it. It's regurgitated. But while we're here, let's hold both candidates to the same standard. You're overly dramatic side comes out AGAIN. Never moved a goalpost. They were in the same position in each post. It was always about politics and the dislike on Cubans part towards Trump. None of that is a revelation. You don't want my analysis on Biden's condition, yet you'll shove down our throats your analysis on why it's wrong to give it. That's not how it works. It is how it works when you only want to utilize it to score points. I don't need you to tell me what I already know. Not why I'm here. And yes, you shift goalposts with every post or create some kind of excuse to deflect from the reality of the responses you give. It's fine, just own it. Here's my bottom line: The media assault (The NYT just posted another article a few hours ago about Biden stumbling over his words) has a purpose behind it, and it's not because they are afraid of the candidate. It's a lot more sinister than that. Meanwhile, not a single news source is carrying Project 2025, the calls for a second revolution, or anything other than Biden's gaffes. It's shameful stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jul 4, 2024 22:41:48 GMT -8
You're overly dramatic side comes out AGAIN. Never moved a goalpost. They were in the same position in each post. It was always about politics and the dislike on Cubans part towards Trump. None of that is a revelation. You don't want my analysis on Biden's condition, yet you'll shove down our throats your analysis on why it's wrong to give it. That's not how it works. It is how it works when you only want to utilize it to score points. I don't need you to tell me what I already know. Not why I'm here. And yes, you shift goalposts with every post or create some kind of excuse to deflect from the reality of the responses you give. It's fine, just own it. Here's my bottom line: The media assault (The NYT just posted another article a few hours ago about Biden stumbling over his words) has a purpose behind it, and it's not because they are afraid of the candidate. It's a lot more sinister than that. Meanwhile, not a single news source is carrying Project 2025, the calls for a second revolution, or anything other than Biden's gaffes. It's shameful stuff. No, you like to spin, deflect and much more along those lines. Just own it. It's not shifting goalposts when it's been the same subject line for me all along. Politics. Cuban has an ulterior motive to say what he said, which is his dislike for Trump. That falls into the political realm. I've noticed that myself and others have to spell things out for you quite often. Not good. If you read the comments, most people are laughing at him. Using him is a horrible example. You can go ahead and keep saying that the Country shouldn't be worried about the health of the person who is the Face of the Nation, and also not be worried about who would be next in line should he step down, but nobody would take you seriously. It's painfully obvious why you're diminishing it, but it's not working. It's there for all to see. I'm over this subject. It's starting to feel incredibly ridiculous debating Biden's mental state, and to top it off discussing who would be dumb enough to hire him as their Face of the Company. It's incredibly laughable. Ryan, again, your agenda is painfully obvious and so is huge bias. You could never be fair and impartial if you were on a jury. I hope you never perform jury duty. Yikes!!! |
|
|
|
Post by aztecnails on Jul 5, 2024 1:16:16 GMT -8
There are 3 living ex-presidents (bill clinton, George Bush and barry obama) who held that job for 2 4-year terms and are ineligible to be either president and vice president. John Banzhaf, a misguided law professor at George Washington University Law School made a comment that he thinks obama could be a vice president. That comment violates both the 12th and 22nd Amendments based on succession rules about who can be president.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 5, 2024 7:57:11 GMT -8
There are 3 living ex-presidents (bill clinton, George Bush and barry obama) who held that job for 2 4-year terms and are ineligible to be either president and vice president. John Banzhaf, a misguided law professor at George Washington University Law School made a comment that he thinks obama could be a vice president. That comment violates both the 12th and 22nd Amendments based on succession rules about who can be president. Source: The Gateway Pundit. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jul 5, 2024 8:22:22 GMT -8
It is how it works when you only want to utilize it to score points. I don't need you to tell me what I already know. Not why I'm here. And yes, you shift goalposts with every post or create some kind of excuse to deflect from the reality of the responses you give. It's fine, just own it. Here's my bottom line: The media assault (The NYT just posted another article a few hours ago about Biden stumbling over his words) has a purpose behind it, and it's not because they are afraid of the candidate. It's a lot more sinister than that. Meanwhile, not a single news source is carrying Project 2025, the calls for a second revolution, or anything other than Biden's gaffes. It's shameful stuff. No, you like to spin, deflect and much more along those lines. Just own it. It's not shifting goalposts when it's been the same subject line for me all along. Politics. Cuban has an ulterior motive to say what he said, which is his dislike for Trump. That falls into the political realm. I've noticed that myself and others have to spell things out for you quite often. Not good. If you read the comments, most people are laughing at him. Using him is a horrible example. You can go ahead and keep saying that the Country shouldn't be worried about the health of the person who is the Face of the Nation, and also not be worried about who would be next in line should he step down, but nobody would take you seriously. It's painfully obvious why you're diminishing it, but it's not working. It's there for all to see. I'm over this subject. It's starting to feel incredibly ridiculous debating Biden's mental state, and to top it off discussing who would be dumb enough to hire him as their Face of the Company. It's incredibly laughable. Ryan, again, your agenda is painfully obvious and so is huge bias. You could never be fair and impartial if you were on a jury. I hope you never perform jury duty. Yikes!!! Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it spin, man. Sorry that's lost on you. I don't know what to tell you, but framing something as "______ doesn't like Trump" is flimsy, at best. It's a weak rebuttal. I could find someone else and you'd come up with a new goalpost shifter. It's what ya do. But I understand. You have to spell things out for me? Hahahahahahahaha. Holy hell, that's funny. You have to do that because most of the time, your ideas, comments, statements, questions and opinions are illogical, nonsensical and unintelligent. You told me just a few posts ago that the discourse doesn't even matter, even though it's literally shaping this election. One of the dumbest things I've ever heard. You have failed, consistently, to articulate your position, repeating the same lazy, general narratives over and over again. Optics, optics, optics, optics, optics. We get it. It's not what's being asked. Figure it out. Pathetic. I have never said that the country shouldn't be worried about anyone's health. I've asked for the same standard of care to be placed on both candidates. Simple. Responsible. I said I'm not worried about the general public's construct, as casual voters just repeat what they hear from the sources they view. Lazy stuff. Now, to brass tacks. Did some digging. The New York Times, back in April, had one of their reporters go on the record, saying this. Imagine creating a sphere of influence of a massively important election because your editor is butthurt about not getting an interview with the president. Truly astounding. Yesterday, the executive editor says this: Galling levels of gaslighting the public. Investigating yourself to tell yourself that you did a great job, while simultaneously ignoring every single negative story that doesn't revolve around Biden. It's indefensible. You can be tired of something (that you even brought up yourself?) but it's because you're incapable of going deeper, consistently, to more complex ideas. Not my thing. What you think is "obvious" is irrelevant to me, it's literally not what I'm talking about. We are in two different libraries here, which is unfortunate. I'd be tired, too, if I was in your shoes. We owe it to ourselves and our fellow man to be better than this. Too much is at stake. |
|
