Skip to main content

Biden Just Won The Election

Biden just won the election.

I just watched the first debate. It was a disaster for Trump. I pretty much saw the entire debate, and I haven't listened to any pundits (who can never be trusted to give an accurate review). Not only was Biden lucid, but Trump would not stop interrupting. I think Trump was trying to "be Trump", instead of trying to be natural. But he must have had a false idea of what "being Trump" is. He must have seen ownage videos of himself on the internet and thought that should be the entire debate. But he forgot that the highlights were well-timed, humorous quips like "Only Rosy O'Donnell" and "Because you'd be in jail". Unfortunately, he made none of those well-timed, humorous quips in this debate. Instead, he would not stop interrupting, and he showed himself in a bad light.

Most people who support one candidate or another can never admit if their preferred candidate lost a debate. But if your stomach drops and you silently urge in your mind, "Please, stop!", then deep down, you know the truth. And while most people are set in their ways, I believe that this debate itself could have lost Trump 2% of those who might have otherwise voted for him. At first, I thought that Biden continuing to hide and not debate would be best for the former vice president. But in fact, I don't see a way that this debate could have lost Biden voters or gained Trump voters, whereas the opposite is quite likely.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sokal-style hoaxes work for religious postmodernists, but (post) modernism is the real hoax Modernism in art and architecture, and postmodernism in philosophy are, like religion, insults to human intelligence.  Unfortunately, many people fall for their hollow propaganda. The "Sokal Affair" was a hoax whereby a man called Alan Sokal submitted a postmodern-sounding article to a postmodern journal.  It turns out that the English you hear isn't just unintelligible to you, but it's unintelligible to the people at the journal as well.  But if it's unintelligible, it must be profound, right?  The journal quickly accepted it, not knowing that it was all fake B.S.  They then got embarrassed when they were told that it was pompous-sounding drivel. Religion has done the same thing.  When people can't understand something, they generally think it's much more profound than if they can understand it.  If a priest speaks Latin, wears some weird costume, and sp...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Islamic State has beheaded at least 21 Christians in Libya.

Whenever a Muslim brings up the Crusades, I have to laugh to myself.  Christians have done horrible things, including in later crusades against Constantinople and the Cathars in particular.  However, get this.  The Islamic State militants said, "Safety for you crusaders is something you can only wish for" right before butchering Egyptian Christians. It seems that many Muslims haven't taken a single history class.  If they had, they would have known that Christians existed in Egypt for 400 years before Islam.  (Heck, they were even around to murder Hypatia, perhaps the last major ancient female philosopher.)  It was the Muslims who were the "Crusaders"...yet almost nobody will admit to this.  Muslims instigated a merciless war against Christian Egyptians until they were overcome and under Islamic domination.  They did this to people across the world, from Spain to India...massacring any who resisted.  They tried to destroy the Byzaintine Em...
Post a Comment
Read more

In Defense of...Cecil Rhodes?!

You all know Cecil Rhodes, right?  He was a British Imperialist (living from 1853-1902) who founded the De Beers diamond mining and trading company.  Just this morning, I came upon a post comparing him to Adolf Hitler, and claiming that Cecil Rhodes killed at least 60 million Africans.  It has been shared 99 times.  Here is the post: https://plus.google.com/+TonyJefferson/posts/CZ6HW3AxDo6 Unlike many, I decided to do some research on it.  That is my nature.  I don't accept things without evidence given, and even when no evidence is provided, I search for evidence.  If after looking, no evidence is forthcoming, then I discount the claim unless compelling evidence does surface.  After my research on this topic (taking up about an hour of my day and 28 open tabs on my browser...but still an enjoyable time because this is what I like to do), I found that my initial skepticism was well justified and that this comparison is incorrect.  Adolph H...
3 comments
Read more