Biden’s team commits to all presidential debates after Cleveland showdown

It’s amazing how people can have watched the same debate, and come up with an opinion like yours. If Trump had not spoken up as often as he did, Wallace and Biden would have mopped the floor with him, as the two of them made quite a tag team. We all knew Wallace was going to treat Trump unfairly, and he did. At several points, he sounded like he was going to order the President to bed with no supper or video games. And Biden, despite either reading off notes or listening through an ear bud, lost control of any semblance of adulthood, when he called the POTUS a clown and a liar, while himself lying at every turn, while repeatedly throwing in asides to Wallace that Trump is unable to do this, that, or the other, as Wallace scolded Trump for trying to get a word in edgewise. If you consider that maintaining composure, I certainly can’t see it. Biden really should have been sent to bed without supper OR his pudding cup.

It’s amazing how people can have watched the same debate, and come up with an opinion like yours.

You could have stopped there, but since there are no Wallaces around to stop me, let me continue.

OK, you missed the point completely. I've lived in Dekaware for 36 years and through watching Joe for all this time, sometimes from only a few feet away, have learned to really hate all he represents, including the rest of his family, except maybe Beau in a few instances. I am certainly not a never-Trumper and intend to vote for him, as he is our only hope that something of my beloved American culture may be preserved (I didn't day restored). But he proved exactly why my reservations about voting for him in 2016 were not ill-founded.

Actually, to those who were and are a part of the All-American community that I would wish to associate with, it is not at all amazing why we seem to come to the same conclusions about Trump's public behavior. He is just a kid who was so rich and poorly disciplined that he does not at all display the kind of graciousness that would set him above the kind of boorish bully that needs a cow prod to bring him into a socialy acceptable mode of relating to those lesser gifted, or raised in the criminal subculture.

What is really amazing is that someone like you can call themselves "conservative" and think themselves a judge of people like myself, whose behavioral models are not like either Trump OR Biden OR the Clintons. While I could not vote for Dubya (nor Gore nor regarding his policies, he certainly conducted himself with Kerry) the poise and consideration that attracted the kind of woman who stayed married to him for good, and the kind of daughters that modeled respect for their fellow-citizens, made him one of my favorites as to personal conduct.

If you were really conservative, you would rather preserve the behavior of men such as George Washington and John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D. Eisenhower, rather than that disturbing provocative selfishness of The Donald.

And actually in last night's debate, I saw Wallace giving Donald several breaks, helping him snatch his chestnuts out of the fire. And also actually, Donald lied so blatantly that a liar like Joe could justly accuse him.

Whether you like it or not, Trump's puerile behavior likely cost him some support without making others more favorable. He did not do hhimself much good by overplaying his Presidential hand.

Everyone knows how Trump behaves in ways we may not like, at times. By all accounts, one on one in person at the White House, he is kind and generous. I think he is still shocked by the barbarism of Washington politics, even after all his years dealing with tough New Yorkers. Personal foibles and deficits aside, he has been our best president for a long time, not only for the things he has accomplished for our country, but for his toughness with adversaries. Too long, republicans have been milquetoast cowards, allowing liberals to walk all over them, just so they could say they behaved like gentlemen, no matter what the cost. Taking the high road is always preferable, IF one can afford it, but we cannot. Democrats cheat, lie, take unfair advantage, and pull every dirty trick in the book to get what they want, and believe me, they have no respect for republicans who don’t fight back, they just consider such as they to be fools. We get nothing for it. If Trump hadn’t pressed in, he would have never gotten a word in edgewise. It is what it is, and he must play the hand that’s dealt him, and it is always a deck stacked against him and us.

Trump said “Which son, Hunter? He got kicked out for cocaine and ended up making millions from China and Russia”.

It was a sight to behold.

———-

Brilliant jujitsu move by Trump shut down Joeys sob story and forced him to say not true in stead of never proven.

He either got the money or didn’t as a result of association with Joe not because he was a “ must have” based on expertise.

I understand what you are saying, agree with much of it, and thought the same about it myself. What you maintain is thus:

Too long, republicans have been milquetoast cowards, allowing liberals to walk all over them, just so they could say they behaved like gentlemen, no matter what the cost. Taking the high road is always preferable, . . . If Trump hadn’t pressed in, he would have never gotten a word in edgewise. It is what it is, and he must play the hand that’s dealt him, and it is always a deck stacked against him and us.

This last I don't agree with. It is not the kind of deportment appropriate of a character to be respected and imitated. Your vision has to go beyond that, In a true debate (which Tuesday night's was absolutely not) the rules are to give the adversary X minutes of uninterrupted presentation to the question, and then you are given the same to critique it, also completely without interference.

The point is for the observer, not the participants, to evaluate the arguments. But to refuse to obey the pre-agreed rules: (1) the one determined from the outset to be willing to invalidate the agreement would, to the observer, have to mark his behavior unworthy of the audience's support; and (2) The on-looker ought to be insulted by asking him/her to evaluate the candidates' behaviors, rather that their arguments.

And if that ultimately judge is the omniscient, omnipotent God of the Universe, without consulting anyone else able to rule in favor of whomsoever He Will, it ought to be fairly obvious to the debaters to at least keep the rules of engagement sacrosanct.

Here's the way the God-head looks at one's behavior in such a case:

James 3:13-18 AV:

¹³ Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
¹⁴ But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
¹⁵ This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
¹⁶ For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
¹⁷ But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
J¹⁸ And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

The idea here is that if you face a confrontation, and handle it the way God wants, He's likely to be behind you, and you'll win, no matter if others see your position is weak. But if you try to handle it the was the Satan-run world does, He won't stand with you and assure your victory. You'll be om your own.

On Tuesday night, Donald Trump did not conduct himself the way God wants us to.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.