WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2024 Poal.co

1.5K

He can't stay on topic. She is overacting to him in a clearly rehearsed way. Neither one of them will just answer the question.

He can't stay on topic. She is overacting to him in a clearly rehearsed way. Neither one of them will just answer the question.
[–] 0 pt

Perhaps, but a simple NO would be an answer. My example is when they asked her about the jew war. This was the highlight of the night for her. She answered directly and spoke her word salad for 2 straight minutes without ever looking at Trump or mentioning him in any way. When it was his turn they very pointedly asked him what his new administration would to about that war and he spent the entire 2 minutes talking about her and russia and ukraine and what a bad president fjb is. He did not even recognize the question.

[–] 1 pt

Perhaps, but a simple NO would be an answer.

Only if he was a fool. It's an obvious gotcha question which would eternally be repeated out of context, much like the "fine people" hoax.

My example is when they asked her about the jew war

That is a good example. Though, again, only a fool would provide a sound-biteable answer. Harris's answer was sound-biteable but absurd. There can't be the "two state solution" she mentioned because Hamas has genociding Israel as a party plank. The PLO has repeatedly rejected two state solutions in the past, but theoretically they could change their minds in the future if Hamas is out of the picture. Since October, Israel has been taking a shot at killing Hamas, but that war has been a political landmine in America. What possible answer could Trump give on that topic that's honest? It's basically:

1) America and "our greatest ally" team up to wipe out Gaza, and the East Bank is next if it still rejects a two state solution after that.

2) America teams up with Hamas to wipe out Israel.

3) America does nothing while both sides kill each other as they've done for the past 70 years.

There isn't a 4th option given the ideologies in the region, and all three honest options provoke American voters into hypersonic reeeeing about genocide.

I get how stupid it is, but we're dealing with delusional American voters in here.

[–] 1 pt

Fair enough.

If we were voting though I would take number 3. Including zero American tax dollars for either side but give them both as many bullets as they want.